As I type this, the President-Elect is holding a "victory rally", railing against the media and continuing to spew nonsense about refugees and immigrants. He just said violent crime is at a 45-year high, when it is in fact at at a 51-YEAR LOW!!! Being carried wall to wall on every major channel and network. I don't remember any other President having these kind of rallies in the wake of an election victory, but I damn sure know someone else in history who liked them very much.....
I just read that Hollande - the French president - will not stand again.
When I was in Paris for Ennio Morricone, I saw an old friend, and pushed about the presidential election, and he said that for all the criticism, he felt that for moments of terror, Hollande was a father of the nation more than popularly recognised.
Hollande is obviously also a deeply unpopular president, and his recognition of it is statesmanlike. I do mind whom is the French president, always.
That's the point I was going for that the US is supposedly a first world country but the ship has all but sailed on basic democratic institutions including freedom of the press and free elections.
As someone telling me that "keeping pants on" is a friendly stance on humans being sexual, it is very hard for me to take a severe infringement of press freedom as "a first world problem."
If you want to change that, telling me so is probably not the first step. Wanting it to change is.
Us Finns meanwhile are not uncertain about press freedom. It must be.
No. I'm saying the first world problems you were describing about Finland seemed quaint. In the US we don't have those problems, we have problems with free press and free elections.
When I say "college" I don't mean a name-brand four-year university that even I cannot afford (and I make well above the national average). No, I mean community college, where you can earn computer certifications to open the door to jobs which not only pay more than the minimum wage but can land you at a desk instead of working in a warehouse or a big box retail store. I crunched the numbers for people before and the cost of earning the two entry-level certificates is about $1,500, much of which can be obtain via Federal grants and/or scholarships for low-income students. Grants, not loans--you don't have to pay those back.
I didn't say it was easy to claw one's way up the ladder, only that it is possible.
Even our own two are going to have to live at home while attending the community college for the first two years, after which they have to option of transferring to a larger four-year campus.
I have two Bachelor's of Arts degrees, one for Mathematics and another for Chemistry--incidentally, *never* take four accelerated French courses during only one summer unless you want to spend 6 hours each day in class then have 4 hours of homework each night. I have never used either degree in any job I have ever had. Well, no--I was an actuarial analyst for about a year but that was mostly Excel spreadsheets.
I've done the community college thing. Then I ran out of money. No transfer for me.
Unfortunately, my parents are right smack in the middle of the road when it comes to their finances. Rich enough to afford a decent house, two cars, food and electricity and water. Too poor to send their kids to higher level education beyond the first two years. Not poor enough to obtain any help from the government. You know. The dying middle class.
Now that I'm 24 I do plan on looking into FAFSA and seeing what I can get with my own financial information, seeing as I make not even 15k a year. :P My grandparents have suggested online classes and that's another possibility. Like @semiticgod said, the situation's not hopeless or impossible. But it is more difficult than ever before, and it's certainly not a situation I want for my future kids.
Would that change anything though? Didn't he win the electoral college?
He will win the electoral college because he won those three states. If a recount shows that Clinton really won those states (which is a real stretch), then she wins the electoral college.
And the truth is, it is virtually impossible that a recount would change anything.
But by opposing it, it implies that the Trump camp has something to hide, and undermines thier claim to legitimacy. The smart thing would have been to support the recount in order to put your legitimacy beyond doubt. But smart and Trump don't exactly go together.
Which may be exactly the outcome that was hoped for in seeking the recount in the first place.
And the truth is, it is virtually impossible that a recount would change anything.
But by opposing it, it implies that the Trump camp has something to hide, and undermines thier claim to legitimacy. The smart thing would have been to support the recount in order to put your legitimacy beyond doubt. But smart and Trump don't exactly go together.
Which may be exactly the outcome that was hoped for in seeking the recount in the first place.
Technically the electors can vote their own way, but in practice, it's almost never happened. The only case I can think of is Virgina electors refusing to cast their votes for Richard Mentor Johnson for Vice President because of his near-marriage relationship with a black woman.
I will be really disappointed (but not surprised) if "Russian hackers stole the election" becomes the left's version of "he was born in Kenya."
Republicans are knife-fighters who play for keeps. Witness the 2000 recount if you have any doubt. There is next to zero chance Trump doesn't get sworn in on Jan. 20th. There are a half a dozen reasons this stinks to high heaven, but, in the end, it isn't going to amount to dick.
If the votes have already been cast, would a popular recount even allow the college to change what they already voted?
I'm pretty sure it doesn't, that's why they're trying to get the recount done before December 19, and also why Trump's challenges to the recounts have all included requests for an injunction stopping the recount until the court case is decided.
If the votes have already been cast, would a popular recount even allow the college to change what they already voted?
the electoral college will elect the president on december 19. before then, if the number of electors switches to clinton's favor, which will happen if she turns out to have won the popular vote in all three states where there's a recount, she will become the president-elect and will be expected to become president.
yeah, in theory, a number of electors may turn "faithless" (one is semi-confirmed so far), but that can happen with either candidate. and it's more likely to happen if the recount succeeds, so that the tide turns back in trump's favor because it would be a much smaller margin. but it's still impossible. not technically, but, yeah, impossible.
so if the recount shows that the vote counting went wrong and that hillary won the vote in the three states, she will become the president. basically 100%. but the recount will not show that, because it's just a not a reality that something terribly wrong happened to the votes - like what? and on top of that even if something turns up, it won't be in all three states, it's silly to expect that.
so the whole recount thing is stupid. it's a waste and i couldn't support that.
I support the recount. I'd like to see if there was fraud or not. The statisticians said the machine counted ballots not the paper ballots were giving results outside of what was expected mathematically and things like 100% of the voting population (or higher) in places we're casting ballots which would seem unusual. Also places that went blue across the board for everything else somehow voted for Trump which may or may not be true.
I don't get the opposition to a recount. If everything is above board then great no problem with the election process. If something is wrong we Americans need to know. It's not a waste because the states are being paid to recount the votes. That's what the 7$ million dollars of crowd funded money is for.
I find it funny that a lot of the Democrats I spoke to pre-election were worried that Trump would raise a big stink if he lost and waste time and money on a recount. And now the Democratic party is doing that exact thing. Everything is okay so long as it is your party that does it.
I find it funny that a lot of the Democrats I spoke to pre-election were worried that Trump would raise a big stink if he lost and waste time and money on a recount. And now the Democratic party is doing that exact thing. Everything is okay so long as it is your party that does it.
The Democratic Party has NOTHING to do with this recount. Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate whose vote totals in each state FAR exceed Trump's margin of victory (thus making her Ralph Nader 2.0) is behind this. The Hillary camp had nothing to do with it, they are NOT contesting the results of the election. They are simply not objecting to Stein using perfectly legal mechanisms to initiate a recount. I repeat, even though she is now ahead by 2.5 million votes nationwide and leads Trump by 2%, and the country is essentially under minority rule because of our archaic electoral system, the Clinton camp is NOT contesting the results of the election as we speak.
I find it funny that a lot of the Democrats I spoke to pre-election were worried that Trump would raise a big stink if he lost and waste time and money on a recount. And now the Democratic party is doing that exact thing. Everything is okay so long as it is your party that does it.
That concern with trump was never that he might call for a recount.
He said he wouldn't accept the election results unless he won. What does that mean to not accept results of an election? Has Hillary said that even now? She hasn't even asked for a recount herself. She's never said she doesn't accept the election.
By saying he would not accept defeat in an election, Donald was preparing his frothing at the mouth army of deplorables to rise up in armed revolution if he didn't win. Not every Trump supporter is one of those but there are definitely some like that.
And that's different than politely asking for a recount.
It's worth pointing out that the Democratic party accepted the election results without delay, despite the upset. That is what Hillary and Obama did in the wake of the election. In fact, the two of them explicitly called on Americans to work with Trump and wish for his success as president. Despite all of the ugliness and bad feelings, they did exactly what they were supposed to do.
Trump said he would "keep us in suspense" when asked whether he would accept the election results. Obama and Hillary accepted the results, even after they lost. Just because the head of the GOP does something doesn't mean the Democratic party does, too.
When it comes to accepting the legitimacy of the 2016 election results, the difference between the Democratic party and the GOP is the difference between "yes" and "maybe."
Sometimes both sides do it. And sometimes, only one side does it.
It's worth pointing out that the Democratic party accepted the election results without delay, despite the upset. That is what Hillary and Obama did in the wake of the election. In fact, the two of them explicitly called on Americans to work with Trump and wish for his success as president. Despite all of the ugliness and bad feelings, they did exactly what they were supposed to do.
Trump said he would "keep us in suspense" when asked whether he would accept the election results. Obama and Hillary accepted the results, even after they lost. Just because the head of the GOP does something doesn't mean the Democratic party does, too.
When it comes to accepting the legitimacy of the 2016 election results, the difference between the Democratic party and the GOP is the difference between "yes" and "maybe."
Sometimes both sides do it. And sometimes, only one side does it.
I'm glad the Democratic party didn't.
This is true DESPITE the now historic level of discrepancy between who is taking power and the actual will of the people who voted in this country. Losing an election like this must be devastating to begin with, but to know that you essentially cleaned house in actual vote totals (and make no mistake, a 2% popular vote total in this country is a massive victory, relatively speaking) must be 10x as hard. Whatever problems you may have with Obama or Hillary, they have handled themselves as well as a person could in the wake of a narcissistic madman taking office. That's their job, and they have done so. However, that is NOT the job of those who oppose Trump in the general public. Maybe a typical Republican would deserve the chance to prove himself in office. Trump is not that person. Besides, I went that route in the first few months after 9/11 with Bush. Never again. I've seen this movie before.
So President-Elect Trump just caused an international incident.
By speaking with Taiwan's President he ignored diplomatic relations set up with Beijing since 1979 and the 'one china' policy that means that Taiwan is part of China and not an autonomous nation.
Trump's transition team said. "During the discussion, they noted the close economic, political, and security ties exists between Taiwan and the United States. President-elect Trump also congratulated President Tsai on becoming President of Taiwan earlier this year."
When this was noticed and the uproar started, Trump tried to blame Taiwan for the call!
I have said before that there are no training wheels to becoming president, and we may have seen the effects of that today.
Reports are ricocheting across the news media and the diplomatic world that Donald Trump has become the first United States President or President-elect to speak directly with the leader of Taiwan in decades.
There is no bigger touchstone to the stability of the far rim of the Pacific than the issue of Taiwan. We do not yet know what precipitated this apparent gross breach of established American protocol, but the damage may already have been done. This is deeply serious business. You can expect that the government in Beijing is burning up the trans-Pacific communications with some version of "what the hell is going on?" They will likely make their displeasure, if not fury, known very quickly.
There is nothing that would concern the Mainland Chinese more than suspicions that American foreign policy will change. We can guess that this was something Trump and his advisors didn't think through. Or maybe it was meant to be provocative. Regardless, someone needs to tell the President-elect that this isn't some "reality-show" that you can fix in the editing room.
Government, like paper money and Santa Claus, depends on the acceptance of the people for it's existence. If faith is undermined instability ensues.
It was Trump who started to undermine faith in the process, and (proving his stupidity once-and-for-all) continues to do so with his claims about illegal votes. Obama and Clinton have both attempted to shore up faith, since they are both educated enough to understand the consequences.
Government, like paper money and Santa Claus, depends on the acceptance of the people for it's existence. If faith is undermined instability ensues.
It was Trump who started to undermine faith in the process, and (proving his stupidity once-and-for-all) continues to do so with his claims about illegal votes. Obama and Clinton have both attempted to shore up faith, since they are both educated enough to understand the consequences.
Politicians have been undermining that faith for years. Obama's motto was "Change," or "Change we can believe in," and we just got more of the same from the Democratic Party. George W Bush was "Reform with Results," with more of the same from the Republican Party. John Kerry's was "Let Amererica be America again". Bill Clinton's was "Its time to change America." All the while the message is the same, "I can do it better than the screw-ups before me or in the office now, they all suck and I don't."
Cries of voter fraud are as old as democracy, true or not. Both Al Gore and President Bush cried voter fraud in Florida, but no one remembers that Bush did too because he won.
There is a big difference between faith in individual politicians, and faith in the political process itself.
Yes, there have always people suggesting voter fraud and other similar problems. And sometimes they are even true (look up Tower Hamlets for a recient UK example). What matters though is not wether it's true or not, what matters is if a significant proportion believe it to be true.
For example, rumours that the son of the unpopular king James II had miscarried, and a replacement "smuggled in a warming-pan" was widely believed, despite being arrent nonsense, and this contributed to the overthrow of James, to be replaced by William & Mary.
Comments
When I was in Paris for Ennio Morricone, I saw an old friend, and pushed about the presidential election, and he said that for all the criticism, he felt that for moments of terror, Hollande was a father of the nation more than popularly recognised.
Hollande is obviously also a deeply unpopular president, and his recognition of it is statesmanlike. I do mind whom is the French president, always.
Get it? Sorry for misunderstandings.
Unfortunately, my parents are right smack in the middle of the road when it comes to their finances. Rich enough to afford a decent house, two cars, food and electricity and water. Too poor to send their kids to higher level education beyond the first two years. Not poor enough to obtain any help from the government. You know. The dying middle class.
Now that I'm 24 I do plan on looking into FAFSA and seeing what I can get with my own financial information, seeing as I make not even 15k a year. :P My grandparents have suggested online classes and that's another possibility. Like @semiticgod said, the situation's not hopeless or impossible. But it is more difficult than ever before, and it's certainly not a situation I want for my future kids.
Thus, I will complain about it.
And the truth is, it is virtually impossible that a recount would change anything.
But by opposing it, it implies that the Trump camp has something to hide, and undermines thier claim to legitimacy. The smart thing would have been to support the recount in order to put your legitimacy beyond doubt. But smart and Trump don't exactly go together.
Which may be exactly the outcome that was hoped for in seeking the recount in the first place.
I will be really disappointed (but not surprised) if "Russian hackers stole the election" becomes the left's version of "he was born in Kenya."
yeah, in theory, a number of electors may turn "faithless" (one is semi-confirmed so far), but that can happen with either candidate. and it's more likely to happen if the recount succeeds, so that the tide turns back in trump's favor because it would be a much smaller margin. but it's still impossible. not technically, but, yeah, impossible.
so if the recount shows that the vote counting went wrong and that hillary won the vote in the three states, she will become the president. basically 100%. but the recount will not show that, because it's just a not a reality that something terribly wrong happened to the votes - like what? and on top of that even if something turns up, it won't be in all three states, it's silly to expect that.
so the whole recount thing is stupid. it's a waste and i couldn't support that.
I don't get the opposition to a recount. If everything is above board then great no problem with the election process. If something is wrong we Americans need to know. It's not a waste because the states are being paid to recount the votes. That's what the 7$ million dollars of crowd funded money is for.
He said he wouldn't accept the election results unless he won. What does that mean to not accept results of an election? Has Hillary said that even now? She hasn't even asked for a recount herself. She's never said she doesn't accept the election.
By saying he would not accept defeat in an election, Donald was preparing his frothing at the mouth army of deplorables to rise up in armed revolution if he didn't win. Not every Trump supporter is one of those but there are definitely some like that.
And that's different than politely asking for a recount.
Trump said he would "keep us in suspense" when asked whether he would accept the election results.
Obama and Hillary accepted the results, even after they lost. Just because the head of the GOP does something doesn't mean the Democratic party does, too.
When it comes to accepting the legitimacy of the 2016 election results, the difference between the Democratic party and the GOP is the difference between "yes" and "maybe."
Sometimes both sides do it. And sometimes, only one side does it.
I'm glad the Democratic party didn't.
By speaking with Taiwan's President he ignored diplomatic relations set up with Beijing since 1979 and the 'one china' policy that means that Taiwan is part of China and not an autonomous nation.
Trump's transition team said.
"During the discussion, they noted the close economic, political, and security ties exists between Taiwan and the United States. President-elect Trump also congratulated President Tsai on becoming President of Taiwan earlier this year."
When this was noticed and the uproar started, Trump tried to blame Taiwan for the call!
Check out this tweet (note the caps).
But why did you not hang up or cover it up, why did he have his transition team brag about it earlier?
Oh yeah the President Elect who's been ignoring intelligence briefings is winging it again. Also he's trying to build some hotels in Taiwan too so he probably called to ask about permits and green lighting that while he was on the phone.
Dan Rather said:
I have said before that there are no training wheels to becoming president, and we may have seen the effects of that today.
Reports are ricocheting across the news media and the diplomatic world that Donald Trump has become the first United States President or President-elect to speak directly with the leader of Taiwan in decades.
There is no bigger touchstone to the stability of the far rim of the Pacific than the issue of Taiwan. We do not yet know what precipitated this apparent gross breach of established American protocol, but the damage may already have been done. This is deeply serious business. You can expect that the government in Beijing is burning up the trans-Pacific communications with some version of "what the hell is going on?" They will likely make their displeasure, if not fury, known very quickly.
There is nothing that would concern the Mainland Chinese more than suspicions that American foreign policy will change. We can guess that this was something Trump and his advisors didn't think through. Or maybe it was meant to be provocative. Regardless, someone needs to tell the President-elect that this isn't some "reality-show" that you can fix in the editing room.
It was Trump who started to undermine faith in the process, and (proving his stupidity once-and-for-all) continues to do so with his claims about illegal votes. Obama and Clinton have both attempted to shore up faith, since they are both educated enough to understand the consequences.
Cries of voter fraud are as old as democracy, true or not. Both Al Gore and President Bush cried voter fraud in Florida, but no one remembers that Bush did too because he won.
Yes, there have always people suggesting voter fraud and other similar problems. And sometimes they are even true (look up Tower Hamlets for a recient UK example). What matters though is not wether it's true or not, what matters is if a significant proportion believe it to be true.
For example, rumours that the son of the unpopular king James II had miscarried, and a replacement "smuggled in a warming-pan" was widely believed, despite being arrent nonsense, and this contributed to the overthrow of James, to be replaced by William & Mary.