Russians accused of interfering in election to get Trump elected

[Argus]

16 hours ago, taxme said:

Ask them?  Myself personally, I believe that the website reports real news, not fake news. 

What you believe has little to do with reality. This is a 'quack site' to quote rationalwiki.

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

It amazes me that a bunch of "B" list actors who couldn't convince democrats to vote are now trying to convince people to betray their constituents and vote against "the people".

Wasn't the electoral college put in place for this very situation, to prevent the ignorant masses from voting in a lunatic as president?

[Argus]

14 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Who cares who got more overall votes, that was not the rules of the game.  You can't punish Trump because Hillary played the wrong game.

But the rules of the game also say the electoral college can vote in whomever they want, so it doesn't sound like you care much for the rules of the game.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Sorry, I'm loving the recent turn of events in the US.  It's sad seeing just how out of touch the media, democratic party and celebrities are though - embarrassingly so!

Out of touch with whom? The majority?

[Smallc]

31 minutes ago, Topaz said:

Its been reported, that even if Russian was involved, there no connection to the voting machines ,not many connected to the net and it was the PEOPLE who voted Trump in. Having said that, if those against, can change the out come, legally or other wise, the country could have a civic war on its hands and  the US is lucky the terrorist don't have an Air Force because while they are fighting among themselves they could attack,not that I would want that but the politicians better THINK more about their country and not what THEY want.

You really need to start getting some more reliable sources.

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

Maybe you would be more informed if you watched Fox, they followed the right polls and knew what was going on.

Yet according to a study the viewers of FOX are the most ignorant people in America when questioned about current events, worse even than those who watch no news.

[Argus]

10 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

You guys are actually defending the media that lied and tried manipulating you for the last 18 months.  It's like you people suffer from "beaten wife syndrome".

No one who watches FOX has any right to pretend other people are watching media that lies and manipulates them.

[Argus]

9 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

Like you ever did...

I did, and I didn't like the crude insults or the appalling ignorance.

[Argus]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4046222/Donald-Trump-ready-accept-Russia-hacking-report-FBI-CIA-agree-says-Reince-Priebus-says-doesn-t-think-hacks-swayed-election.html

Looks like the forces of reason have got to the president-elect again.  

I guess all the guys here denying there is any proof of Russian involvement will now have to go back to FOX to learn their new talking points.

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I did, and I didn't like the crude insults or the appalling ignorance.

 

At which rally? There were many.

[taxme]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

What you believe has little to do with reality. This is a 'quack site' to quote rationalwiki.

Reality is what I believe I am reading and listening too. Why do you say that Natural News falls in the catagory of being a "quack site"? Did you go there once, read something you didn't like, and thus in your opinion the website promotes quackery? Just maybe what you are reading and listening too can be considered to be quackery also. 

Hey, you never know. 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

At which rally? There were many.

Every time he opened his mouth. I also didn't like what I read of his history of unethical and incompetent behavior in business, his pettiness, or his repeated adultery, or his swaggering braggadocio.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Argus

[GostHacked]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

But the rules of the game also say the electoral college can vote in whomever they want, so it doesn't sound like you care much for the rules of the game.

That's not what I classify as democracy. What is the point in voting?

[bush_cheney2004]

30 minutes ago, Argus said:

Every time he opened his mouth.

 

Every time he opened his mouth, he got more votes.

[cybercoma]

9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Every time he opened his mouth, he got more votes.

Yet still nearly 3 million less votes than Hillary.

[bush_cheney2004]

8 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Yet still nearly 3 million less votes than Hillary.

 

Hillary got mostly Alt-Left votes in Alt-Left counties...not enough to win the election.  

[taxme]

26 minutes ago, cybercoma said:

Yet still nearly 3 million less votes than Hillary.

So? The popular vote does not matter. This will always come up every time the liberal/democrats want to try and nail Trump on something. See, if it were not for the electoral college votes Hillary would be in. Boo-hoo. Well, during the next election things may change but not today. Trump is now the President of the USA. Time to get on with life.  

Edited December 19, 2016 by taxme

[Rue]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

Wasn't the electoral college put in place for this very situation, to prevent the ignorant masses from voting in a lunatic as president?

Uh not quite.

The actual rationale for the electoral college works like this. The US Constitution through its college system, gives each of the 50 states a total number of electors equal to the combined total of its membership in the Senate( which is of course 2 Senators per state) and House of Representatives members (which varies depending on the population of each state) and you have to remember when the US first was created it had 13 states but some were very big while others were small and the small states didn't want to be ganged up on by the larger states. As well in those days, the original US of A consisted of 4 million people living  mostly on the East Coast with little communication as to political activities outside the state where people lived. Because of that, the idea of a national campaign like you have the day was not really seen as imaginable in those days and it was feared people in each state would simply vote for the candidate from their state because they would not know of any other politicians to vote for.  As well its true, in those days political parties were viewed suspiciously as coercive gangs.

So the founders of the US wanted  to assure the Senate and House of Representatives assured fair and equal representation for all states balancing their  population sizes but also trying to prevent small states from being perpetually bullied by large states.

Electing the Prez by popular vote was in fact rejected. not as many think because it was felt people were stupid or not to be trusted but in fact because the creators of the nation worried that there was a lack of cross US national communications network and so this would mean voters would necessarily vote for someone from their own state not knowing the other states candidates. So it was not so much they didn't trust people to make intelligent choices as much as it was a worry they would not get info of other state candidates and that's the reason they went to the electoral vote-not to second guess the popular vote as many misstate it to be.

Now in fact the College of Electors is not new, its borrowed from the Roman Catholic Church and how its Cardinals select the Pope, mixed with the view that the President should be chosen based solely on merit and without regard to his or her state of origin or political party. So in fact today's vote is very rarely base on which state someone was born in. These supposed electoral college voters were to safeguard selecting a President solely on merit without regard to the state he was born in.

The US state is based on the Roman state or Republic which explains its architecture and why the Electoral College imitates both he RC Church and old Romanic states. Not that most people know but in the old Roman state, to vote you had to be male and an adult and of course a citizen of the state, and it was based on how much money you had and voters were put into groups called centuries (100 people per group) and that 100 member group had one vote for or against proposals raised in the Roman Senate.

So technically the electoral college says instead of century groups, states will take the place of the century groups. The number of electoral votes per each state ha sbeen base don the size of each state's congressional delegation.

So this is why if you read Article 11, s.1 of the US Constitution each state always has at least 2 electoral votes ( b ased on the fact each has 2 Senators) and then the remaining electoral votes per state is based on the number of House of Representative members which depends on the size of each state's population.

The actual manner or method or procedure  of how to chose  the actual college Electors was left to the individual State legislatures to decide in the US constitution..

The above system made it through 4 elections. Then political parties grew in importance to such n extent that in 1800, the College Electors of the then called  DemocraticRepublican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr  of that party the exact same no. of electoral votes causing confusion.

To break that tie the then House of Representatives ruled Jefferson's favor - but it took them 36 rounds of voting to do this,

In fact the very fear the US founders had of parties bargaining over the presidency and the Electoral College was supposed to prevent happened and so to avoid this fiasco the US Congress (Senate and House of Representatives and each US State agreed to what is called the 12rth Amendment in 1804.

That amendment was drafted to  prevent tie votes in the Electoral College precisely because of the  rise of political parties and for that matter to guarantee the US President and Vice President would come from the same party.

If you read the 12^th Amendment it mandates  that each College Elector has one vote for president and another one separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president as it originally was.

Plus the Amendment says  that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect and/or if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office.

So to summarize the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not chosen because in the days the electoral college was created it was felt the physical and demographic circumstances of the country would facilitate a vote for the very best person as opposed to just the person from each state which would be the only politicians each state's citizens would be familiar with.

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Rue

[Omni]

4 minutes ago, taxme said:

So? The popular vote does not matter. This will always come up every time the liberal/democrats want to try and nail Trump on something. See, if it were not for the electoral college votes Hillary would be in. Boo-hoo. Well, during the next election things may change but not today. Trump is now the President of the USA. Time to get on with life.  

Yeah heaven forbid that the majority of the population should choose their own leader. 

[taxme]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

Uh not quite.

The actual rationale for the electoral college works like this. The US Constitution through its college system, gives each of the 50 states a total number of electors equal to the combined total of its membership in the Senate( which is of course 2 Senators per state) and House of Representatives members (which varies depending on the population of each state) and you have to remember when the US first was created it had 13 states but some were very big while others were small and the small states didn't want to be ganged up on by the larger states. As well in those days, the original US of A consisted of 4 million people living  mostly on the East Coast with little communication as to political activities outside the state where people lived. Because of that, the idea of a national campaign like you have the day was not really seen as imaginable in those days and it was feared people in each state would simply vote for the candidate from their state because they would not know of any other politicians to vote for.  As well its true, in those days political parties were viewed suspiciously as coercive gangs.

So the founders of the US wanted  to assure the Senate and House of Representatives assured fair and equal representation for all states balancing their  population sizes but also trying to prevent small states from being perpetually bullied by large states.

Electing the Prez by popular vote was in fact rejected. not as many think because it was felt people were stupid or not to be trusted but in fact because the creators of the nation worried that there was a lack of cross US national communications network and so this would mean voters would necessarily vote for someone from their own state not knowing the other states candidates. So it was not so much they didn't trust people to make intelligent choices as much as it was a worry they would not get info of other state candidates and that's the reason they went to the electoral vote-not to second guess the popular vote as many misstate it to be.

Now in fact the College of Electors is not new, its borrowed from the Roman Catholic Church and how its Cardinals select the Pope, mixed with the view that the President should be chosen based solely on merit and without regard to his or her state of origin or political party. So in fact today's vote is very rarely base on which state someone was born in. These supposed electoral college voters were to safeguard selecting a President solely on merit without regard to the state he was born in.

The US state is based on the Roman state or Republic which explains its architecture and why the Electoral College imitates both he RC Church and old Romanic states. Not that most people know but in the old Roman state, to vote you had to be male and an adult and of course a citizen of the state, and it was based on how much money you had and voters were put into groups called centuries (100 people per group) and that 100 member group had one vote for or against proposals raised in the Roman Senate.

So technically the electoral college says instead of century groups, states will take the place of the century groups. The number of electoral votes per each state ha sbeen base don the size of each state's congressional delegation.

So this is why if you read Article 11, s.1 of the US Constitution each state always has at least 2 electoral votes ( b ased on the fact each has 2 Senators) and then the remaining electoral votes per state is based on the number of House of Representative members which depends on the size of each state's population.

The actual manner or method or procedure  of how to chose  the actual college Electors was left to the individual State legislatures to decide in the US constitution..

The above system made it through 4 elections. Then political parties grew in importance to such n extent that in 1800, the College Electors of the then called  DemocraticRepublican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr  of that party the exact same no. of electoral votes causing confusion.

To break that tie the then House of Representatives ruled Jefferson's favor - but it took them 36 rounds of voting to do this,

In fact the very fear the US founders had of parties bargaining over the presidency and the Electoral College was supposed to prevent happened and so to avoid this fiasco the US Congress (Senate and House of Representatives and each US State agreed to what is called the 12rth Amendment in 1804.

That amendment was drafted to  prevent tie votes in the Electoral College precisely because of the  rise of political parties and for that matter to guarantee the US President and Vice President would come from the same party.

If you read the 12^th Amendment it mandates  that each College Elector has one vote for president and another one separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president as it originally was.

Plus the Amendment says  that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect and/or if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office.

So to summarize the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not chosen because in the days the electoral college was created it was felt the physical and demographic circumstances of the country would facilitate a vote for the very best person as opposed to just the person from each state which would be the only politicians each state's citizens would be familiar with.

 

It's over. Trump is now the President of the USA. The liberals/democrats need to get over their loss, and stop whining and crying and trying to get Trump from becoming President. In four years time they can go for it again. But by then, I think that Trump will have shown the people that he is a true leader. 

[?Impact]

8 minutes ago, taxme said:

It's over. Trump is now the President of the USA.

Not my President.

[taxme]

2 minutes ago, Omni said:

Yeah heaven forbid that the majority of the population should choose their own leader. 

See, you liberals just won't quit, will you. So tell me? Are you an American? And if not, why the heck do you care as to who becomes President anyway? Just curious.

But you don't even know Trump personally. How do you know who or how the man thinks? It would appear as though all the bad information that you are getting about Trump is coming from the liberal establishment. And we all can see by now just how crazy and ridiculous some liberal/democrat supporters can become when they don't win. They riot and demonstrate, whine and cry, and carry on like a bunch of immature brats. If Hillary did become President, all those brats would be in power and control in some way, and America would be finished off completely. Some sanity now prevails thanks to Trump becoming President. Hopefully, some sanity can reach and get inside some of these brats heads. They really do need a reality check.     

[taxme]

Just now, ?Impact said:

Not my President.

Are you American? Just asking? If you are Canadian then it is for sure that he is not your President, and is a silly thing for a Canadian to be saying. Millions of Americans wanted Trump as their President, and now Trump is there President, and they are quite thrilled over it. Live with it. I have too, and I am quite happy about it. Sanity will now rule America. 

[Omni]

2 hours ago, taxme said:

See, you liberals just won't quit, will you. So tell me? Are you an American? And if not, why the heck do you care as to who becomes President anyway? Just curious.

But you don't even know Trump personally. How do you know who or how the man thinks? It would appear as though all the bad information that you are getting about Trump is coming from the liberal establishment. And we all can see by now just how crazy and ridiculous some liberal/democrat supporters can become when they don't win. They riot and demonstrate, whine and cry, and carry on like a bunch of immature brats. If Hillary did become President, all those brats would be in power and control in some way, and America would be finished off completely. Some sanity now prevails thanks to Trump becoming President. Hopefully, some sanity can reach and get inside some of these brats heads. They really do need a reality check.     

I get a pretty good idea of what he thinks by what he says. How do you estimate peoples thoughts I wonder? Or are you just happy with any nutbar?

[DogOnPorch]

10 hours ago, Argus said:

Every time he opened his mouth. I also didn't like what I read of his history of unethical and incompetent behavior in business, his pettiness, or his repeated adultery, or his swaggering braggadocio.

It will be a long 8 years for you, hating Trump.