Oh my, yet again mentioning in a round about way the popular vote, something that matters not one jot, in determining who wins the Presidency.
The important factor here is thar way more states and thus electoral college votes went for Trump, that is the only numbers that matter in this discussion.

We all know it doesn't determine who wins the Presidency.

I think what the poster you've responded to (and others) is simply pointing out that he really isn't popular with the majority of the US electorate as a lot of people are trying to insinuate.

His campaign was strategically very, very clever. He won (often marginally) in states that counted/mattered.

He is unpopular with the majority - I think the public demonstrations and outpouring of disbelief, concern and discontent reflects this.

I think the public demonstrations etc, are from the people who belive that their candidate lost, and are not taming it at all well, I don't believe that it is a reflection on his overall popularity or lackthereof.

The loudest people will always get their voices here more than most people, whether they be his supporters or not.

He is popular with most of the country, as that is who voted him into office, the more highly populated states might not have voted for him, but that doesn't mean that he wasn't popular with most states in the country.

i wouldn't waste my time Penny, that poster seems incapable of understanding context

Yet again you're saying that acres of land should decide who is president.

Trump lost the popular vote by a huge margin and therefore he was not the most popular choice. Please try to understand and accept that, and stop repeating your inaccurate and misleading false statements which undermine your credibility.

Of course I can do understand context, why say otherwise?



Which false statements have I said? All I have said is that Trump (sadly or whatever your personal viewpoint is) won convincingly on the only method that matters here, the electoral college.

Is it the ideal way of doing this, probably not, but until it is changed then it is the method that we have to go with and talk about.
Any other numbers like the popular vote etc, are just there to be used as tools for analysis, not to be taken seriously, as a way of pointing out if a President elect won convincingly or not.

Going by the electoral college votes, he did win handsomely, and deserved to be the next President on those numbers.
He won the most states, and therefore surely is the majority winner here.

If the system is ever changed to including the popular vote, or some other method of deciding who wins the Presidency, then we can talk about those numbers rightfully deserving to be talked about as then they would matter, but until then, we have the system that we have got (for better or for worse).

You said: "He is popular with most of the country"
That is false, unless you're counting blades of grass, trees or cacti bushes.

You said that going by the Electoral College he won handsomely.
That is false. He won, but not by much compared with previous elections.

You said: "He won the most states, and therefore surely is the majority winner"
That is a false conclusion. Even with the Electoral College, the result is not decided by how many states a candidate wins.

As others have pointed out to you - this is not a reference to victory in the election - but in answer to Martin who described Trump's victory as some kind of popular rebellion - it is not since more people voted for Clinton, than Trump - nor was it just a small amount, but by the largest amount in American election history.

Fair enough, we have a disagreement over terms that can be perceived as being wrong or right depending on which side you sit on.

Let's put this behind us, and just say that Trump did win, and let's see what he does whilst in office.

The sooner they accept the result and who won based on the electoral system in place - which the US has used based on its constitution for 227 years - the easier it will be for them.

Mrs Thatcher wasn't exactly popular with half the country - she was arguably hated by them. Didn't stop her radically transforming the UK.

Who wants middle of the road crowd pleasers who are completely ineffective anyway. Reagan, FDR and Lincoln didn't sit on the fence and weren't weak.

AFAIK nobody here is disputing that Trump won the presidency. We're only pointing out the various incorrect statements being repeatedly made by batdude.

They had the bare faced cheek to be critical of Trump's answer at the last debate over accepting the result or not, and look at how they have acted since the election, like babies who didn't get there own way, with recounts, belittling Trump and his appointments and continued use of the popular vote as a way to try and taint his victory.

Whatever happened to "they go low, we go high!"???
That soon went out of the door when they didn't win!

yeh was amusing watching them riot

Most accept the result - it does not mean that they are not frightened with the result, and Trumps behaviour since being elected has not filled many with confidence that he will rise above many people expectations, rather the opposite - he is fulfilling them.

You spent much of the election telling people (including me) that a nuclear war was going to be more likely with Clinton in charge - yet it is Trump who recently signalled an increase in America's nuclear arsenal - after 40 years of reducing it.


I'd prefer vaguely competent - instead we have Trump, a man whose latest pronouncement is that the most technological advanced military on the planet should go back to paper and pencil!

Problem is Clinton isn't competent in the slightest either

I object to your "acres of land" comparison.

A state is not just acres of land. It is a people seperate and distinct from others. Someone from Alabama, for example, is far different in outlook and in culture than someone from New York City.

Governments have to reflect that diversity, and governments in North America in particular have to show due consideration for geographical concerns. Why? Because many geographical boundaries in North America divide areas that could function economicaly as independant nations.

I think most citizens of the U.S. understand fully what it means to neglect geopolitics within their own national boundaries. If not, there are civil war graveyards to visit for a crystal clear reminder.

at draining of the swamp has started well - by neutering the body that investigates the ethics of member of congress:

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/0...ersight-233111

[i][In one of their first moves of the new Congress, House Republicans have voted to gut their own independent ethics watchdog — a huge blow to cheerleaders of congressional oversight and one that dismantles major reforms adopted after the Jack Abramoff scandal.

Monday's effort was led, in part, by lawmakers who have come under investigation in recent years.




.

.
Despite a warning from Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), House Republicans adopted a proposal by Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) to put the Office of Congressional Ethics under the jurisdiction of the House Ethics Committee.

The office currently has free rein, enabling investigators to pursue allegations and then recommend further action to the House Ethics Committee as they see fit.

Now, the office would be under the thumb of lawmakers themselves. The proposal also appears to limit the scope of the office’s work by barring them from considering anonymous tips against lawmakers. And it would stop the office from disclosing the findings of some of their investigations, as they currently do after the recommendations go to House Ethics.

President-elect Donald Trump ran on a platform of draining the swamp of an often all-too-cozy Washington D.C. Monday night’s moves go in the opposite direction, severely loosening oversight of lawmakers' potential conflicts of interest, use of campaign money and other ethical matters.

“Republicans claim they want to ‘drain the swamp,’ but the night before the new Congress gets sworn in, the House GOP has eliminated the only independent ethics oversight of their actions," snarked House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) in a statement after news of the secret-ballot vote. "Evidently, ethics are the first casualty of the new Republican Congress."

The vote to declaw the OCE was orchestrated by several members who felt they had been wrongfully accused of unethical behavior by the OCE, according to several sources in the room. The sources said several members currently or formerly under the OCE's microscope stood up to support the pitch, which was eventually adopted by a vote of 119 to 74.

One of those was Rep. Blake Farenthold, the Texas Republican who was accused by a former staffer of sexual harassment. The OCE recommended in September 2015 that the Ethics panel drop a probe of the matter, but Farenthold did not like the way the case was handled. A court later threw out the staffers' lawsuit as well.
/I]

I genuinely don't understand how this has passed - if the GOP leadership AND the Democrats oppose this, how on earth has it been wheedled through, by EXACTLY the people the Ethics Committee has been investigating?! I mean, clearly the new Congress will vote on this - and hopefully repeal, given the bad publicity this has generated so far. 11th hour gerrymandering of house rules needs to be nipped back - and I can't see any winners for a move like this, except the deeply dodgy politicians who are trying to escape being censured for bad and/or borderline illegal behaviour. It does sound like they snuck this one through, knowing they just about had a caucus, but before the Dems and GOP leadership realised they were voting - I suspect a full house vote will mean the GOP pulls out their whips, and tries to get everyone in line for a complete vote.

I'll be interested to see how Trump responds - he ought to come out 'bigly' against this - given it was one of his major tenants of his campaign - and reassure the voters that he still cares about his so-called swamp draining (even when, in reality, it's clear he couldn't give a sh*t!). TBH, it would be some easy points scoring - Trump gets to reaffirm a few key campaign pledges, without really doing anything substantive; he would demonstrate that he actually is paying attention to Congress (even though everyone knows he couldn't care less!), and it would be 'leader-like' to make pronouncements against corruption and poor policies in a branch of government!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0w_6NYrrpc

The trouble is that the constitution was not set up back into day, to deal with someone like Trump becoming President.

So it is a bit harsh to hold him to the rules in the 1800's or whenever that was written, as todays inter-conected world, is very different from the one that the founding fathers were living in when they made those rules and regulations.

Why? I've done committee work and it is perfectly reasonable to expect those with a vested interest to abstain from either voting on a proposal or effecting the outcome.

The President has much more power in this respect - in that they can veto and sign into law a proposal.

funny how that a couple of weeks ago when it was pointed out that the electoral college wasn't setup to reflect the modern inter-connected world and that the founding fathers could not possibly have foreseen that the world would change when they made those rules and regulations, that was just the way it was and people should respect the constitution

You really should just begin every post with, I'm not a Trump supporter but......

The man is a walking constitutional disaster area.

Are you sat in a cramped office in darkest Siberia along with a load of other Russian internet trolls tapping out inane and ignorant defence of Comrade Trump?

Would it save time if the impeachment process was started at the same time as his inauguration?