-TSS-

In 29 states the electors are prohibited to vote against the will of their respective states. That leaves 21 states where they are free to vote otherwise. However, the idea of 37 electors changing their vote is not really realistic. Perhaps the general purpose of all these speculations about Russians hacking the election and the EC not endorsing Trump is to undermine his presidency before it has even started. To root a feeling that there's something illigetimate about it.

If many enough electoral college members refuse to vote for Trump so that he loses the majority it may still not mean that they would vote for Hillary instead. They could vote for almost anyone of their choice and the outcome would be a mess. It would be unforeseen and interesting to see what happens if the electoral college really does not vote Trump. Would that lead to serious social unrest?

There is something to it that the Brits never failed to colonise any place which they wanted. They just weren't interested in some places. Perhaps they had some vision which places were worth the hassle and which were hopeless basket-cases and better left to the French to struggle with.

I have always been interested on the issues of colonialism and the conquest of the new world as to the question which European countries were the best/worst hosts whether it came to ability/inability or kindness/cruelness. Whenever this topic crops up the indisputed winner in Europe on the issue of cruelness is Belgium. Their colonisation, or rather his, refererring to Leopold III, killed millions of Congolese as Leopold totally robbed the country and left Congo with nothing. Outside Europe hardly anyone disputes that the Japanese are the worst possible colonial masters. If you don't believe that just ask Koreans. Of course the very idea of "the best" colonial master is like comparing which poison gives you the least painful death. However, the very fact that there are 53 member-states of the British Commonwelath some of them weren't even ever British colonies while there are no such nostalgia-clubs for the former Spanish or French colonies speaks some volumes. In South-America in countries such as Peru or Bolivia the indigenous population even make the majority of the population. That is not to say the Spanish would have been kind-hearted not to slaughter the entire indigenous population like they did in Mexico under Cortes. They just couldn't do it everywhere.

It can be said that at least Castro has been more successful than Hugo Chavez whose version of socialism has Venezuela on its knees and more deeply than Cuba in a much shorter time. Now that Chavez is dead and his successor lacks Chavez's charisma the country is in turmoil. None of this ever in Cuba.

I'm not sure if I understood this correctly but based on what I think I understood I'll say it is rubbish. Namely, you may have a very good idea which is your first preference or even second preference but if there are, say, 10 options on offer can you really make a realistic decision which is 6th best and which is 8th best? In reality you would put those other meaningless alternatives just in a random order. The problem is also, as someone pointed out, that in a tight race you put the rivals of your favourites at the bottom even though in reality you really wouldn't prefer some far extreme lunatic-fringe to the biggest rivals of your favourites, would you?

Perhaps you're right. It's not important or urgent. Besides, even though people in principle may oppose the present arrangement but money talks and making any changes would cost money which would be better spent on something else.

Indeed and even if people weren't too satisfied with the situation the issue is simply never going to be urgent enough to be addressed at once. On top of that all this "if it ain't broken don't fix it"-rhetoric. Given the demographic changes your country is undergoing there are bound to be a lot of people who will think it is broken and needs to be fixed. Btw. When you become a Canadian citizen are you obliged to make some oath of allegiance to the crown or only Canada?

One would imagine that in all of these countries, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, where a foreigner is the head of state the system worked well as long as the vast majority of the population of the countries in question originated from the United Kingdom but as with globalisation and ever increasing immigaration this must be getting less and less common and more and more people living in those three countries feel no loyalty or affinity whatsoever towards someone living 10000 miles away that just must have some pressure on the system.

Is there any support in Canada for becoming a republic like there is in Australia where they even had a referendum which was lost but the issue isn't dead? There is a marked difference between Australia and New Zealand as in the former there is the republican-movement while in the latter there is almost no sentiment that the British should be viewed as, if not even as enemies, but as a nuisance to get rid of. In NZ Britain is often referred to as the mother country, something you can spend your life-time trying to hear in Australia. Just wondering what sort of benefits is there for Canada to remain in the Commonwealth and is remaining in that union only possible if you have a foreigner as head of state?

Neither of them comes even remotely close to George W Bush and Tony Blair.

A lot of Cuban-Americans have claims to property in Cuba. After the Cuban regime finally collapses a lot of lawyers will be getting richer.

The closest seems to be the westernmost tip of Cuba to Cancun in Mexico. I wonder why that route hasn't become used. I know Mexico isn't the USA but Mexico isn't Cuba either.

I just watched the map. I didn't realise before how close Cuba is to Florida. I knew it was close but that close. If it were as easy to move into the USA as it is to move from Africa into any EU-country there would probably be no-one left in Cuba.

It seems that your Prime Minister made the statement without consulting his advisors first. He comes across as a kind of guy for whom it is always unwise to make any statements without consulting his advisors first.

Even though Fidel has been away for some time from the leadership of the country his death clearly marks an end of an era. How many people in Cuba are mourning and how many people are thinking "good riddance" is anyone's guess. The news reports tell about wild street celebrations in Miami, which gives you a clue about the popularity of the deceased leader. Where from now? Will Cuba open up and turn into another Central-American/Caribbean country, which in reality means subservience to the US but if the alternative is poverty then no prizes for guessing which is the preferred option. Expect a tidal wave of immigration from Cuba and long days for lawyers in Florida working for Cuban-Americans trying to reclaim their lost property in Cuba.

I think in a country like Finland it was useful at a time as late as in the 1960's when something like 95% of the population belonged to the same religious group. The exceptions were odd outcasts but otherwise society had cohesion. Nowadays that percentage is about 70% and I am certainly not included. The very idea of an established church in any state is just absurd. People ask "Do you belong to the church?". It is still the church. Not a church. I'm glad we seculars are gaining ground year after year.

Justin kto?

He only has two years to do what he likes and even then it will be difficult as most Republicans don't like him either. In two years time the Republicans will suffer a defeat in the mid-term elections and Trump's hands will be tied. You can say that with near certainty as it has happened to every President that their parties don't do well in mid-term elections.

I'm sure the vast majority of these "protesters" are just having fun as for some people have a weird idea of fun including rioting but it would be interesting to know how many of them are sincere protesters and what exactly do they wish to achieve. Do they expect the election-result to be cancelled only because it didn't please them? Are they grown-up people who realise that disappointments are part of life?

The elction in four years time is not going to be another "incumbent president gets easily re-elected"-election like we have used to in the past few years. Trump will very likely be talked out of standing for re-election but if he still decides to seek re-election he may face a serious challenge from within the Republicans, which is totally against the tradition. Namely, an incumbent President seeking re-election is challenged in primaries only by attention-seeking village-idiots but not by serious politicians. That may be different if Trump runs for another term.

It's about time people got over their disappointment and started to look ahead. It's been one week already. Enough of doom and gloom! Some people are behaving as if this were the final presidential election and the outcome would be affecting forever. Besides, Trump-haters can take consolation in the near-certainty that Trump has only two years to do as he pleases as every time the president's party loses the mid-term Congress-election. There has not been any so popular president that he would have won the mid-term elections.

It's funny actually that a multi-billionaire is viewed as a candidate of the "forgotten people" or of those of the ordinary man. The same thing happened in 1992 when another mega-rich candidate Ross Perot stood as a third-party candidate and practically destroyed Bush sr chances of being re-elected. It can be said that the vast majority of those who voted Perot would have voted Bush had there not been Perot.

Soros is a dangerous man. He is like Trump but on the opposite side of the fence.

Is the poison-feeder Soros living in America? If so I wish Trump goes after him and has him arrested for inciting hatred because that is what Soros has done for a long time. Of course I realise that such a wish is just fantasy. Nothing will change and the sorores of this world will go on.