Vort Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 Your guy won. I did not vote for him, but I must admit I had a Schadenfreude-inspired smile on my face when I went online Tuesday evening last week to check out the results. If he abandons his absurdly offensive language and turns out to govern well, I will morph into an enthusiastic (well, at least dedicated) supporter. Windseeker, Just_A_Guy and classylady 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Vort said: Your guy won. I did not vote for him, but I must admit I had a Schadenfreude-inspired smile on my face when I went online Tuesday evening last week to check out the results. If he abandons his absurdly offensive language and turns out to govern well, I will morph into an enthusiastic (well, at least dedicated) supporter. Congratulations is too soon, I think. Everything he has done since post-election is promising. Even his tweets. I believe he is who I think he is... especially after pulling blue states to red against both the Dems and the Repubs plus the media trying to bring him down. But we won't really know until we really see what he does. We went through the same "angst" with President Duterte. 6 weeks into his Presidency and I was assured he'd deliver on the things I voted for. But even then, it's still too soon to see if what I hope would happen will... especially as he is gearing up to deliver on the things he promised that I wasn't too keen on. But, the interesting thing... he appointed my uncle to deliver that promise that I'm most worried about, so at least, I have a way to hammer what my concerns are into its design. Like Duterte, I don't care if Trump changes his language or not. I would rather hear your natural speech than listen to your manufactured politically correct speech that tries to offend nobody so it doesn't really say much of anything. I mean, Pres. Obama just gave a speech in Greece that was a very well politically crafted blow at the President-elect. But, because it is so politically correct, we can argue all day long about what he really meant to say. Duterte, on the other hand, says it plain and simple, "if he thinks that, then he's a son of a b...". No question there. But yeah, he is Bisaya and so Bisaya people can understand him. He sucks at communicating in Pilipino or English so I find myself having to explain to people what he said... I tell my kids all the time, "pay attention in language arts children! I give you case #1 - Pres. Duterte would be so much better if he paid attention to language arts". I might have a case #2 with Trump if he goes back to his early days as a politician. My kids love Nigel Farage... scathing but well-spoken. Or might just sound well-spoken because he has such an elegant accent. Hah! Edited November 17, 2016 by anatess2 Windseeker 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunday21 Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 I was surprised when Trudeau won in Canada. His political experience is limited. So far, he has done a good job. He managed not to comment on the US election in any way. Good for him! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 37 minutes ago, Sunday21 said: I was surprised when Trudeau won in Canada. His political experience is limited. So far, he has done a good job. He managed not to comment on the US election in any way. Good for him! I wasn't surprised at all. People were tired of Harper. I'm not saying I was-I liked him faults and all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 1 hour ago, anatess2 said: Congratulations is too soon, I think. I'll go ahead and spread a rumor simply because it's bothering me. I've heard that there are those who have considered bribing the few members of the Electoral College required to turn the vote. Whether true or not, it is a political possibility. So, no, I wouldn't count chickens just yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightSG Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 2 hours ago, Vort said: Your guy won. I did not vote for him, but I must admit I had a Schadenfreude-inspired smile on my face when I went online Tuesday evening last week to check out the results. Is there a term for schadenfreude inspired mainly by someone else's failed attempt at schadenfreude? Vort, Just_A_Guy and Windseeker 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 18 minutes ago, NightSG said: Is there a term for schadenfreude inspired mainly by someone else's failed attempt at schadenfreude? It's hard to feel sorry for some people on the far left because they'd be gloating and just as obnoxious right now if their lady won. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 But like that guy in college who dates a lot of women but will never settle down-Trump enjoyed the chase more than the actual job. He's in for a rude awakening with the nitty-grittness of the presidency. Don't be surprised if he resigns before the term is up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted November 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 11 minutes ago, MormonGator said: It's hard to feel sorry for some people on the far left because they'd be gloating and just as obnoxious right now if their lady won. I think you are mistaken. Based on my experience, their gloating would go far deeper. Jamie123 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, Vort said: I think you are mistaken. Based on my experience, their gloating would go far deeper. Oh I agree totally with you. They were obnoxious over the gay marriage decision (one that I agreed with, by the way). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 19 minutes ago, MormonGator said: Oh I agree totally with you. They were obnoxious over the gay marriage decision (one that I agreed with, by the way). Resisting the urge to call you a heathen. -- just kidding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 13 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Resisting the urge to call you a heathen. -- just kidding. Yeah... you didn't resist that urge at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 5 minutes ago, estradling75 said: Yeah... you didn't resist that urge at all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NightSG Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 42 minutes ago, MormonGator said: But like that guy in college who dates a lot of women but will never settle down-Trump enjoyed the chase more than the actual job. He's in for a rude awakening with the nitty-grittness of the presidency. Don't be surprised if he resigns before the term is up. Nah; he'll just find ways to get back to the chase. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, Carborendum said: I'll go ahead and spread a rumor simply because it's bothering me. I've heard that there are those who have considered bribing the few members of the Electoral College required to turn the vote. Whether true or not, it is a political possibility. So, no, I wouldn't count chickens just yet. Hah! The faithless electors... do you know why it's not gonna happen? Because, most States have laws against it and those that don't have it don't because their process lends to it not being necessary. For example... Florida has a law that binds electors to the popular vote. If they end up casting a vote to anybody other than Trump their vote gets to be null and void and a new elector sent to replace him. If the Feds end up counting the faithless vote, the people of Florida can sue the State for redress. Pennsylvania on the other hand do not have electors bound to the popular vote. But that is because their electors are chosen by the candidates themselves and not the political party nor the State Dept. So, if an elector goes faithless in Pennsylvania it is completely Trump's fault for his error in judgment in seating that elector. But, do I think Trump would have gone this far if his judgment is that terrible? I say not. If it is, and he ends up losing then he deserved that loss. Edited November 17, 2016 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 (edited) 10 minutes ago, anatess2 said: Hah! The faithless electors... do you know why it's not gonna happen? Because, most States have laws against it and those that don't have it don't because their process lends to it not being necessary. For example... Florida has a law that binds electors to the popular vote. If they end up casting a vote to anybody other than Trump their vote gets to be null and void and a new elector sent to replace him. If the Feds end up counting the faithless vote, the people of Florida can sue the State for redress. Pennsylvania on the other hand do not have electors bound to the popular vote. But that is because their electors are chosen by the candidates themselves and not the political party nor the State Dept. So, if an elector goes faithless in Pennsylvania it is completely Trump's fault for his error in judgment in seating that elector. But, really, do you think Trump would have gone this far if his judgment is that terrible? I'm afraid you're on the wrong side of that belief. The state laws that do exist basically just issue a fine in the neighborhood of $500. As far as suing the federal government, it can't be done. The Constitution outlines the process of the electoral votes and it has nothing to do with any laws from individual states. If they try to sue, SCOTUS will simply reject their complaint outright. So, the bribe need only cover the fine and whatever additional amount to make it worth their while. The overall election cost, what $2billion? They can put together a couple hundred thousand to bribe some people. However, the validation of the electors' votes is done by the House. And that is where things could get dicey. Edited November 17, 2016 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted November 17, 2016 Author Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 Faithless electors would be a huge concern if Trump had won 271 electors. I believe he won over 300, and the odds of getting >10% of them to vote for the corrupt Hillary Clinton are pretty low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 41 minutes ago, Vort said: Faithless electors would be a huge concern if Trump had won 271 electors. I believe he won over 300, and the odds of getting >10% of them to vote for the corrupt Hillary Clinton are pretty low. Yup, close. It was 290. But twenty people x $10 million each = $200 million. That would probably be doable to obtain the post of the most powerful position in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 16 minutes ago, Carborendum said: Yup, close. It was 290. But twenty people x $10 million each = $200 million. That would probably be doable to obtain the post of the most powerful position in the world. Not going to happen. There would massive social unrest if he isn't put in office. I do find it funny though that those screaming for the abolition of the electoral college would be singing it's praises if something like that happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted November 17, 2016 Report Share Posted November 17, 2016 If it comes to bribery, Trump can pay the electors far more than Hillary can; by several orders of magnitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 (edited) 13 hours ago, MormonGator said: Not going to happen. There would massive social unrest if he isn't put in office. I do find it funny though that those screaming for the abolition of the electoral college would be singing it's praises if something like that happened. Right now I'm not predicting it would or wouldn't. I'm just saying that the numbers are there to make it feasible. 13 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said: If it comes to bribery, Trump can pay the electors far more than Hillary can; by several orders of magnitude. I'm not so sure about that. He has assets. But the liquidity of his assets are probably less than not only the Clintons, but those behind the Clintons. Edited November 18, 2016 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
estradling75 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 Anyone else hearing stories of death threats against the Electoral College voters? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeuroTypical Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 The online public square is constantly seething with one dumb thing to worry about after another. Mainstream media's current strategy is to paint Trump's transition as unprofessional, painting him as someone who wanted to run for president more than he actually wanted to be president. The nation is about to discover we're at war and soldiers are dying in T-2 months and counting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anatess2 Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 (edited) 18 hours ago, Carborendum said: I'm afraid you're on the wrong side of that belief. The state laws that do exist basically just issue a fine in the neighborhood of $500. As far as suing the federal government, it can't be done. The Constitution outlines the process of the electoral votes and it has nothing to do with any laws from individual states. If they try to sue, SCOTUS will simply reject their complaint outright. So, the bribe need only cover the fine and whatever additional amount to make it worth their while. The overall election cost, what $2billion? They can put together a couple hundred thousand to bribe some people. However, the validation of the electors' votes is done by the House. And that is where things could get dicey. The fine of $500 is not the issue. The reason that it seems not a big deal to be a faithless elector is because they've never changed the outcome of an election. When it does, you will see it's not that no-big-deal for State Governments, let alone the people themselves. No State Government desires a populace in chaos. And if you haven't noticed, there are only 5 State Governments held by Democratic Governors or State Legislators after Tuesday of last week. You might think... "look at all these protesters and campus walkouts!". You might think, yeah, there's a lot of people that will be happy with that changed outcome. But, without the spotlight of the media, you will realize that these protests are a teeny minority. The rest of the American population - including those who voted Clinton - understand that the Will of the People prevails. There's a reason the 2nd Amendment is written into the Bill of Rights. Edited November 18, 2016 by anatess2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 18, 2016 Report Share Posted November 18, 2016 (edited) 17 minutes ago, anatess2 said: The reason that it seems not a big deal to be a faithless elector is because they've never changed the outcome of an election. Oh? 1836 Election -- Virginia Delegation. It didn't alter the result. But it did alter the election. Edited November 18, 2016 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.