Jump to content
gottaplan

The Trump Presidency

Recommended Posts

TELL DONALD TRUMP TO REJECT HATE AND BIGOTRY

To President-elect Donald Trump: Honor your pledge to America

 

SearchMenu

TELL DONALD TRUMP TO REJECT HATE AND BIGOTRY

To President-elect Donald Trump: Honor your pledge to America

 

During your campaign, you denigrated people because of their race, their religion, their ethnicity, their gender, their disability, and more.

 

You named far-right extremists as advisers, circulated racist and anti-Semitic tweets, and refused to immediately disavow the endorsement of a known neo-Nazi.

 

Now, haters of all stripes – from white nationalists to anti-Muslim and anti-LGBT extremists – are celebrating your victory.

 

You must distance yourself from them.

 

You have pledged to be a president for “all Americans” and to “bind the wounds of division” in our country.

 

If you mean what you say, you must do two things.

 

First, you must publicly disavow all forms of bigotry.

 

Second, you must assure the country that no one associated with a hate group or any form of extremism will have a position, a voice or influence in your administration.

 

The American people deserve no less from their president.

 

Tell Donald Trump to reject hate and bigotry

 

https://www.splcenter.org/tell-donald-trump-reject-hate-and-bigotry-0

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be so much easier to redirect all of that energy protesting, rioting and being violent, towards obliterating or re-structuring the electoral college - if they had made the electoral college easy enough to understand in the first place. I think almost everyone has a somewhat general idea of how it works; I do remember the basics from 7th grade social studies but I'm really struggling here at age 30 and I'm sure a lot of others are as well. Who are these people? Who exactly is the electorate and how are they chosen and by what standards? I was doing a little research online and even the constitution is pretty vague about it's criteria / standards. There just isn't that much information available about what goes on. The electoral college (assuming they're highly educated) seems like a pretty good safeguard against dumbss[/member]es electing a dumbss[/member] and I admit, this is probably the closest we've ever come to actually needing an electoral college to go rogue but if they just meet together as usual and vote for this expected outcome when Hillary won the popular vote, I suppose one could argue that they have no purpose to begin with. Especially since Donald isn't your typical Republican and electors are legally bound by the state and face fines for voting against their party.

 

Here's a cool article. It's about why the electoral college isn't going to go rogue (which I don't think they provide an open-shut case for at all) but it's very informative at least in terms of how the majority of the population can get screwed by this.

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13588048/electoral-college-petition-clinton-trump

 

It'll be interesting to see if Democrats start pushing for some sort of constitutional amendment. I don't see a total obliteration of the electoral college happening but maybe some sort of restructuring, if possible, would be fair. All three times that this has happened, it's screwed over Democrats. It just seems silly that a majority can lose to a minority.

 

Looking quicky at the electoral map, I see Trump has 5 states (upper-west, including Alaska) that probably don't deserve the minimum 3 electoral votes as they're seriously sparsely populated. For God's sake, Montana's largest city is Billings and it has like 22k people) compared to Clinton's two eastern states that have 3 and actually deserve 3. D.C. actually seems like it deserves more than 3, based on population but I don't have time to research all of that right now. Does D.C. just get 3 by default regardless of population?

 

I admit the system seems like garbage and it's worth looking into changing. From my understanding, it was designed so that sparsely populated states wouldn't be disenfranchised but I just don't think that's as relevant of a concern as it once was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump still trying to create the facts...

 

@cliffordlevy

The facts: since the election, @nytimes has seen a surge in new digital subscriptions, 6 times our normal pace https://t.co/dBwKUorPyr

 


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

These gun-nut guys just amaze me.    I think if Wayne LaPierre was standing in front of them, they would drop down and service the guy!  Why do you have to bring it up with every stranger you meet?  Who is coming to take your guns?  And if no one is going to take them, what makes you so happy you got to keep them?  Do you have a brain for yourself or does the NRA do all your thinking for you?    WTF?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

 

According to the description with a video posted Friday on YouTube, a man in a "plaid shirt and camo cap" said something about being glad to have "kept his guns" to a black woman sitting next to him.

 

The woman started "crying and freaking out," and the United Airlines crew members were forced to separate the two individuals.

 

The 'gun nut' is the problem? Not the woman who through a hissy fit so dramatic it nearly grounded a jumbo jet - over a brief, harmless quip? The complete and utter lack of emotional control and stability a woman like that has is what amazes me. People like her need to grow up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow...

 

BREAKING: Obama Administration Officially Investigating Trump/Russia Connection (DETAILS)

 

 

By Georgia Bristow -

November 12, 2016

 

...definitive links between President-elect Donald Trump’s and Russia.

 

An investigative report has been released, titled “The Dworkin Report,” that details several links that went investigated by the FBI showing our president-elect’s ties to Russia and more specifically his links to Russian dictator Vladimir Putin’s administration.

 

In The Dworkin Report, it’s shown that President-elect Donald Trump doesn’t just “have ties” with Russia, he’s incorporated 250 registered businesses there. Which is unusual, considering that it contradicts what our all-so-wholesome and honest president-elect said about him having no ties whatsoever to Russia.

 

http://bipartisanreport.com/2016/11/12/breaking-obama-administration-officially-investigating-trumprussia-connection-details/

 

I'm not sure how how credible this news site is. They don't actually give any information regarding the FBI / Obama Administration investigating this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting.  Given that Trump didn't release his tax returns, i'd be in favor of FBI investigation on his ties with Russia.  If nothing else, they should call him in and say "tell us everything before we investigate..."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting comical. Reince Priebus will be the WH Chief of Staff.

 

But he did pick alt-right leader Steve Bannon as 'chief strategist.'  He's gonna need a real good spin machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting comical. Reince Priebus will be the WH Chief of Staff.

 

But he did pick alt-right leader Steve Bannon as 'chief strategist.'  He's gonna need a real good spin machine.

 

I actually think Priebus is a solid pick for that position.  He's got very close ties to Congress and will hopefully direct affairs with the big picture in mind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting comical. Reince Priebus will be the WH Chief of Staff.

 

But he did pick alt-right leader Steve Bannon as 'chief strategist.'  He's gonna need a real good spin machine.

 

I actually think Priebus is a solid pick for that position.  He's got very close ties to Congress and will hopefully direct affairs with the big picture in mind

 

So much for that swamp-draining Trump has promised....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 'gun nut' is the problem? Not the woman who through a hissy fit so dramatic it nearly grounded a jumbo jet - over a brief, harmless quip? The complete and utter lack of emotional control and stability a woman like that has is what amazes me. People like her need to grow up.

 

But is civility dead?  Why did this guy chose this time and place to bring up a highly-charged topic, on a flight no less?  My guess is he wanted to see how she would react....  And speaking of a lack of emotional control and stability, have you been following this the last year:  https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump  :wave:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Josef Goebbles, ladies and gentlemen....

 

Trump draws sharp rebuke, concerns over newly appointed chief White House strategist Stephen Bannon

http://wapo.st/2fOfOCd


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting comical. Reince Priebus will be the WH Chief of Staff.

 

But he did pick alt-right leader Steve Bannon as 'chief strategist.'  He's gonna need a real good spin machine.

 

I actually think Priebus is a solid pick for that position.  He's got very close ties to Congress and will hopefully direct affairs with the big picture in mind

 

So much for that swamp-draining Trump has promised....

 

You can't drain a swamp without the help of some people who know the inner workings of swamps. Priebus wouldn't have joined the team if he didn't want to help pursue Trump's agenda.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, that church that got vandalized and was scrawled with "Vote Trump" on the side... they needed $10k to restore the church and so far, on GoFundMe ALONE, they've raised over $258k! Crazy. A lot of them...probably half, are self proclaimed Trump supporters who say they hope they don't think that what happened was a reflection of all Trump supporters, but a select, ignorant few.  That's assuming it was actually a Trump supporter and not an insurance fraud attempt or some other conspiracy. They're giving really big donations, too. This warms my heart though, that people are so nice and helping out others who they don't even know. Even though they're not religious and even though they're Trump supporters, they're doing what they can to help. I just hope all that money goes to the right place. You never know with GoFundMe accounts.

 

https://www.gofundme.com/hopewellbaptist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting comical. Reince Priebus will be the WH Chief of Staff.

 

But he did pick alt-right leader Steve Bannon as 'chief strategist.'  He's gonna need a real good spin machine.

 

I actually think Priebus is a solid pick for that position.  He's got very close ties to Congress and will hopefully direct affairs with the big picture in mind

 

So much for that swamp-draining Trump has promised....

 

You can't drain a swamp without the help of some people who know the inner workings of swamps. Priebus wouldn't have joined the team if he didn't want to help pursue Trump's agenda.

 

I could shoot someone on 5th Avenue...  He was right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look I get it's awful that Trump hired an anti-Semite for a top WH position, but he didn't have a private email server, so it all evens out...


"Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you respond." -- Coach Lou Holtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you throw out California, the Clinton crime machine loses the popular vote by over 2M votes, and the electoral college is a complete blowout.  The last thing we need is the land of nuts and flakes calling the shots for the entire country.  A state with a European-born, womanizing Republican governor simply because he was a movie star.  And that has the highest % of 1st generation voters with strong ties to their mother countries (Mexico, India, Southeast Asia, China, Middle East, etc.) and their interests.  If anything, California's role in electing the president of the U.S. should be diluted, not amplified.

 

While we are at it, can we also throw out all the states Trump won by similar or larger margins, including but not limited to Kentucky, Oklahoma, South and North Dakota, West Virginia, Wyoming, Tennessee, Nebraska, Arkansas, and Alabama?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be so much easier to redirect all of that energy protesting, rioting and being violent, towards obliterating or re-structuring the electoral college - if they had made the electoral college easy enough to understand in the first place. I think almost everyone has a somewhat general idea of how it works; I do remember the basics from 7th grade social studies but I'm really struggling here at age 30 and I'm sure a lot of others are as well. Who are these people? Who exactly is the electorate and how are they chosen and by what standards? I was doing a little research online and even the constitution is pretty vague about it's criteria / standards. There just isn't that much information available about what goes on. The electoral college (assuming they're highly educated) seems like a pretty good safeguard against dumbss[/member]es electing a dumbss[/member] and I admit, this is probably the closest we've ever come to actually needing an electoral college to go rogue but if they just meet together as usual and vote for this expected outcome when Hillary won the popular vote, I suppose one could argue that they have no purpose to begin with. Especially since Donald isn't your typical Republican and electors are legally bound by the state and face fines for voting against their party.

 

Here's a cool article. It's about why the electoral college isn't going to go rogue (which I don't think they provide an open-shut case for at all) but it's very informative at least in terms of how the majority of the population can get screwed by this.

 

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13588048/electoral-college-petition-clinton-trump

 

It'll be interesting to see if Democrats start pushing for some sort of constitutional amendment. I don't see a total obliteration of the electoral college happening but maybe some sort of restructuring, if possible, would be fair. All three times that this has happened, it's screwed over Democrats. It just seems silly that a majority can lose to a minority.

 

Looking quicky at the electoral map, I see Trump has 5 states (upper-west, including Alaska) that probably don't deserve the minimum 3 electoral votes as they're seriously sparsely populated. For God's sake, Montana's largest city is Billings and it has like 22k people) compared to Clinton's two eastern states that have 3 and actually deserve 3. D.C. actually seems like it deserves more than 3, based on population but I don't have time to research all of that right now. Does D.C. just get 3 by default regardless of population?

 

I admit the system seems like garbage and it's worth looking into changing. From my understanding, it was designed so that sparsely populated states wouldn't be disenfranchised but I just don't think that's as relevant of a concern as it once was.

 

It is a waste of effort to even worry about getting rid of the electoral college. It will never happen and it will never happen for the reasons you cite above. Take SD, ND, ID, MT, AK, IA - add NH, DE, VT, HI to the mix and all of a sudden you have 10 states that outpunch their electoral weight. They have no incentive to get rid of the electoral college because it gives them more power as an individual state than other states. Now you can add in OH, PA, WI, MI, FL and you have a group of states that are extremely powerful in the electoral process. Would they actually want to give up this power and diminish themselves?  Absolutely not. WIth all these states, it is in their self interest to maintain the status quo. You can even add into it the southern states of AL, AR, LA, KS, OK, MS and you can see why getting rid of the electoral college is a non-starter and waste of breath.

 

The last amendment to the constitution was in 1992 and it was non-controversial. Even if you were able to get 2/3 of the Congress to approve of it like they may have been able to do in 2009, there is no way this would get done in the statehouses. It does not benefit democrats or republicans. Because at the end of the day, the balance of power will always shift and the majority today will be in the minority tomorrow.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.  In another 10 years, when the Dems start getting the edge in Texas (to go along with Cali and NY), it will be the GOP pining to get rid of the EC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's much more likely that we will see the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact implemented. Instead of amending the Constitution to eliminate the Electoral College, states would just agree to give their votes to the winner of the national popular vote. Ten states and DC have signed on, representing 165 electoral votes. It would not take effect until the participating states represent 270 votes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I think it's interesting that this compact wouldn't take effect until they reach 270 electoral votes.

 

1) A compact of 165 electoral votes would likely be enough to swing the election toward one candidate anyway in many instances. This election would have seen Michigan and Pennsylvania change their electoral votes from Trump to Clinton. This would have resulted in Trump reaching exactly 270 Electoral votes. Almost enough to swing this exact election.

2) What happens if they reach the 270, but then the 2020 census redistributes the votes in a way that they go below the 270 again? Does the compact need another state?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.  In another 10 years, when the Dems start getting the edge in Texas (to go along with Cali and NY), it will be the GOP pining to get rid of the EC.

 

Long-term, demographics generally favor the Democrats.  However, there is always some chance that Republicans will modify their platform and start attracting immigrants and groups that do not currently vote for them in large numbers. 

 

However, people need to show up and physically vote.  Obama was elected and reelected by large margin because people who don't vote often or at all showed up and voted for him.  People can complain about voter suppression all they want -- if people want to vote for a candidate they will make the effort to do so rather than needing to be cajoled and dragged to the polls. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I think it's interesting that this compact wouldn't take effect until they reach 270 electoral votes.

 

1) A compact of 165 electoral votes would likely be enough to swing the election toward one candidate anyway in many instances. This election would have seen Michigan and Pennsylvania change their electoral votes from Trump to Clinton. This would have resulted in Trump reaching exactly 270 Electoral votes. Almost enough to swing this exact election.

2) What happens if they reach the 270, but then the 2020 census redistributes the votes in a way that they go below the 270 again? Does the compact need another state?

 

The point of waiting until 270 is that individual states don't want to give up their influence until the majority agree to do the same. The compact could have been written so that it needed all 50 states to sign on to take effect, but that would be pointless since the president only needs 270 electoral votes to win.

 

I haven't read the language of the compact, but I would assume that it only takes effect during presidential elections where there are more than 270 votes among the states that have signed on. So in the event that the number dropped below 270 due to redistricting, more states would need to sign on in order to keep the agreement valid. That seems pretty unlikely though since most of the changes are only +/- 1 seat. Only Texas is the outlier this time around, projected to gain 2 seats.

 

So far, mostly blue states have signed on although some red states are considering it. With Texas poised to gain two electoral votes in 2020 and becoming more blue, now might be a good time for them to sign on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new president's senior advisor runs a website that attacks people for being Jews: https://t.co/qd0RWX2uwy

 

Breitbart was founded by a Jewish guy who is still the CEO. Such anti-Semites!!

 

The left's continued inclination to paint all conservatives as racist, sexist, etc. is what lost them the election. It's sad that so many have yet to come to that realization.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new president's senior advisor runs a website that attacks people for being Jews: https://t.co/qd0RWX2uwy

 

Breitbart was founded by a Jewish guy who is still the CEO. Such anti-Semites!!

 

The left's continued inclination to paint all conservatives as racist, sexist, etc. is what lost them the election. It's sad that so many have yet to come to that realization.

 

 

And Trump Tower makes the best Taco bowls, so Hispanics should really get on board too. Grab it by the taco bowl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

let the memes begin!

 

6143F148-32E5-4E5E-B9CE-13C7A434A464_zpszvdkb77s.jpg

 

 

but seriously one party now has the top spot, senate & house, so no excuses for getting things done.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The new president's senior advisor runs a website that attacks people for being Jews: https://t.co/qd0RWX2uwy

 

Breitbart was founded by a Jewish guy who is still the CEO. Such anti-Semites!!

 

The left's continued inclination to paint all conservatives as racist, sexist, etc. is what lost them the election. It's sad that so many have yet to come to that realization.

 

 

Not an anti-semite?  Well then he's a white supremacist!  No?  Well he's white!  he's gotta be racist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic that a campaign which made media bias a central theme was basically run by members of the media. 

 

What's really sad about this whole thing is that fringe views are now mainstream.  Welcome to the new reality, where facts and science are secondary to raw emotion.  Bannon himself described Breitbart as "the platform for the alt-right."  Hard to argue with that, but Bannon the individual is harder to peg.  He's a former Goldman Sachs banker who made a good bit of wealth from a few key investments.  The more I read about this guy, the more he seems to be an opportunist above anything else.  He saw an opportunity (the public thirst for alt-right reporting) and capitalized on it.  I suspect his counsel towards Trump is going to be focused on continuing to make the alt-right feel empowered and encourage it to fully come out of the shadows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...