Republiclowns on Fox pretending to have a mandate

cabse5 · Nov 11, 2016

thinkagain said:
I thought nothing could be more vomit inducing than listening to Hillary.

Watching these Republican Jokers claiming the will of people was the GOP platform is just as bad.

The people did not vote for the GOP platform. They voted for "anything other than the establishment".

I agree to an extent. These Conservative clowns (not GOP as you have posted) on FOX NEWS don't realize the people elected Trump for his positions not the positions of Conservatives. Heck, Conservatives couldn't even deliver a presidential nominee for the GOP. Trump has the mandate if there is one. Not Conservatives.

Expect a veto pen to be wielded by Trump for as many strictly Conservative measures from congress as BO wielded on congress. IMO, Paul Ryan, for example, will have a comeuppance if the house passes strictly Conservative bills.

thinkagain · Nov 11, 2016

ttwtt78640 said:
Yep, that explains the dismal re-election rate for congress critters.

Who did you think they were going to vote for ? Blue - which is also establishment ?

Your argument is not making sense. One thing we did see is that less people voted in this election than in the last two.

thinkagain · Nov 11, 2016

Orly? said:
No, Trump brought a lot of R congressmen up with him.. The people voted R as well as Trump..

I am not sure what you are saying no to. Do you disagree that people are upset with the establishment ? - which includes the Red establishment ?

thinkagain · Nov 11, 2016

Perotista said:
There is no mandate. Heck, Hillary received more votes total than Trump. Trump just narrowly squeaked by in several important states. He won for sure, but we have a very divided nation. A bit less than half are pro establishment, a bit less than half anti establishment. Maybe? How many Republicans who are pro establishment voted for Trump not because he was anti establishment, but running as a Republican? How many voted for Trump that were very anti-Clinton, but more for establishment ideas? I don't know, time will tell.

Agreed. Large numbers voted Hillary "while holding nose", and the same with Trump.

The unpopular ratings of both these candidates was through the roof.

It is giving a starving person a choice between eating gruel or turnips and saying ... look he ate the gruel .. he sure likes gruel !!

jimbo · Nov 11, 2016

RetiredUSN said:
So, I guess the votes of 10-11 heavily populated democrat cities should outweigh the the other 19,340 towns across the country?

Individual states having a say is considered racist?

How is mob rule supposed to be a more effective way?

One look at the various election maps should explain it to everyone. 95% of the country is red. Remove the electoral college and 5% rules.

All the blue areas will fit into one state, California. Do you want that small an area to dominate the country?

cabse5 · Nov 11, 2016

Sidenote: doesn't Paul Ryan look like Aaron Rodgers, the QB of the Green Bay Packers?

thinkagain · Nov 11, 2016

fmw said:
If you look at it really objectively, the voters did provide a republican congress and republican president in the face of a democrat majority in the population. I do agree that they voted for anything other than the establishment but I view that as positive. Why does it appear to bother you? What positive elements do you see in the establishment.

I do not view the establishment as positive. I think the establishment is ruining this country.

In this election the people voted the establishment back into office - with one possible exception, Trump.

The only thing we can say about Trump is that we do not know for sure whether or not he is establishment. What we can say with certainty is that the vast majority of Congress is establishment. Will they have Trump clucking the same establishment tune ? Probably.

If people want real change they are going to have to figure out that they need to stop voting Red or Blue as voting either is a vote for the status quo.

fmw · Nov 11, 2016

thinkagain said:
I do not view the establishment as positive. I think the establishment is ruining this country.

In this election the people voted the establishment back into office - with one possible exception, Trump.

The only thing we can say about Trump is that we do not know for sure whether or not he is establishment. What we can say with certainty is that the vast majority of Congress is establishment. Will they have Trump clucking the same establishment tune ? Probably.

If people want real change they are going to have to figure out that they need to stop voting Red or Blue as voting either is a vote for the status quo.

Perhaps your crystal ball is better than mine. I have no idea what will happen but, like everyone else, I'll find out.

d0gbreath · Nov 11, 2016

Mac77 said:
Obama was a failed community organizer who never held a private sector job in his life.

He got to the white house based on his skin color.

Trump is a much more capable man than obama ever was

I think trump will get things done

He may get things done if he can handle the long hours and high levels of stress. The Donald is going to be working a lot harder than he is used to working.

I wish him well. He's a Liberal in GOP clothing.

thinkagain · Nov 11, 2016

Hawkeye10 said:
I think he is going to work with and promote anyone who is willing to work to put the American people first, all of them.

"putting America first" is a meaningless platitude. Every politician will tell you that.

The problem has everyone has a different idea what this means.

For example is "Rebuilding the Military - build more ships/planes/and so on" - putting America first ? I would claim that this is hurting out long term security.

Obama/Hillary (and most of the "establishment including Pentagon, DOD and so on" seemed to think that arming Islamist extremists- such as Al Qaeda/Al Nusra, ISIS and others of the same ilk in Syria was "putting America first".

This administration and the previous seemed to think that creating Jihadist wonderlands in Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Syria was "putting America first".

For decades the establishment has been claiming that bolstering massive oligopolies, allowing them to avoid taxes, creating regulations that keep the little guy from competing, allowing massive mergers that put downward pressure on wages was ... "putting America first"

One President made it our Patriotic duty to give up the rights freedoms and liberty that this country was founded on and tried to claim this was "putting America First"

The next guy came along and change the name of the Patriot act to the equally Orwellian doublespeak "Freedom act" claiming "If we want increase security we have to give a little" .. putting America first.

Perhaps you agree that this was putting America first. There was at least one fellow, whose name was Ben Franklin, that disagreed saying

"those that would give up essential liberty to purchase temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security"

thinkagain · Nov 11, 2016

Cardinal said:
Well, they did have a mandate, just not the kind of mandate in the context we're used to thinking of the word. In traditional terms a mandate would infer a wide majority of the popular vote, but this election was different because it highlighted not just right vs. left differences but ignored rural vs urban. In that context, yes, the concerns of the ignored rural voters received a mandate.

Its like giving a starving person a choice between two food items he hates - Gruel and Turnips for example.

Then when the starving person eats one of the two saying "Look ... he likes Gruel"

This was exactly the kind of choice we had in this election. Unfavorable ratings of both these candidates were through the roof.

thinkagain · Nov 11, 2016

eohrnberger said:
Based on the election results, both the electoral and popular votes, I think it fair to say Trump does have the mandate you seem to think that he doesn't.

During the entire primary and general campaigns everyone underestimated Trump. Seems many still haven't learned that lesson even now, at this point.

There is a difference between saying "Trump has a mandate" and "the GOP have a mandate".

While I would agree that Trump has somewhat of a mandate, that mandate is to defy the establishment.

Defying the establishment means defying the GOP. So while Trump could be said to have a mandate ... the GOP does not.

eohrnberger · Nov 11, 2016

thinkagain said:
There is a difference between saying "Trump has a mandate" and "the GOP have a mandate".

While I would agree that Trump has somewhat of a mandate, that mandate is to defy the establishment.

Defying the establishment means defying the GOP. So while Trump could be said to have a mandate ... the GOP does not.

OK. So then I suppose it depends on how many of the GOP are willing to go against the DC establishment, and no, calling all of the GOP the establishment isn't accurate, while some of the GOP are establishment is probably true.

So far, Trump and McConnell are starting on speaking terms, which is good.

thinkagain · Nov 11, 2016

fmw said:
Perhaps your crystal ball is better than mine. I have no idea what will happen but, like everyone else, I'll find out.

I will not say I do not have hope and perhaps the term "probably" is a bit jaded.

I look Mr. "hope and change" and see how this "civil rights - constitutional Lawyer" was turned into a totalitarian - individual rights and freedom hating, constitution trampling, Oligopoly loving servant of "The Master"

That said ... Obama was already part of the system .. a bit of an insider prior to getting elected.

We can not say the same for Trump.

thinkagain · Nov 11, 2016

eohrnberger said:
OK. So then I suppose it depends on how many of the GOP are willing to go against the DC establishment, and no, calling all of the GOP the establishment isn't accurate, while some of the GOP are establishment is probably true.

So far, Trump and McConnell are starting on speaking terms, which is good.

I we want to get technical... I am referring to Republican Congress.

The Republican Congress is mostly bought and paid for pay to play establishment insiders .... through and through.

Perotista · Nov 11, 2016

thinkagain said:
Agreed. Large numbers voted Hillary "while holding nose", and the same with Trump.

The unpopular ratings of both these candidates was through the roof.

It is giving a starving person a choice between eating gruel or turnips and saying ... look he ate the gruel .. he sure likes gruel !!

LOL, I love the way you put this. I was going to give you some numbers on that, but I am too busy laughing.

Okay, calmed down. Per exit polls, Of those who voted for Trump, 51% did so because they really disliked Clinton. It wasn't so much they wanted Trump to win, they just wanted Clinton to lose. Of those who voted for Clinton, 39% did so because they really, really wanted Trump to lose. Not that those 39% wanted Clinton to win. They weren't for Clinton, just against Trump.

But whether you for someone because you really want him to win or you for for someone because you just want the other guy to lose, those votes count the same. What is interesting is in 2012 there were only 2 million votes for third party candidates, this year 7 million votes for third party candidates, an increase of 5 million in an election where there were 4 million less people who voted this year than in 2012. That also speaks to the dislikes of both candidates.

Another aspect is the young voters whom mostly supported Sanders, the 18-29 year olds, they broke down this year 55% Clinton, 37% Trump, 8% third party candidates. In 2012 Obama won this age group with 60% of the vote, Romney 37%, same as Trump with 3% third Party candidates.

Being Trump won Wisconsin and Michigan by less than one percent and Pennsylvania by just over one percent of the vote. The Union Membership vote went to Clinton this year 51-43 and 8 point difference. In 2012 Obama won the union vote 58-40 over Romney, an 18 point difference. The Union vote or the lack of it for Hillary probably was enough to carry Trump to victory in Wisconsin and Michigan.

thinkagain · Nov 11, 2016

Perotista said:
LOL, I love the way you put this. I was going to give you some numbers on that, but I am too busy laughing.

Okay, calmed down. Per exit polls, Of those who voted for Trump, 51% did so because they really disliked Clinton. It wasn't so much they wanted Trump to win, they just wanted Clinton to lose. Of those who voted for Clinton, 39% did so because they really, really wanted Trump to lose. Not that those 39% wanted Clinton to win. They weren't for Clinton, just against Trump.

But whether you for someone because you really want him to win or you for for someone because you just want the other guy to lose, those votes count the same. What is interesting is in 2012 there were only 2 million votes for third party candidates, this year 7 million votes for third party candidates, an increase of 5 million in an election where there were 4 million less people who voted this year than in 2012. That also speaks to the dislikes of both candidates.

Another aspect is the young voters whom mostly supported Sanders, the 18-29 year olds, they broke down this year 55% Clinton, 37% Trump, 8% third party candidates. In 2012 Obama won this age group with 60% of the vote, Romney 37%, same as Trump with 3% third Party candidates.

Being Trump won Wisconsin and Michigan by less than one percent and Pennsylvania by just over one percent of the vote. The Union Membership vote went to Clinton this year 51-43 and 8 point difference. In 2012 Obama won the union vote 58-40 over Romney, an 18 point difference. The Union vote or the lack of it for Hillary probably was enough to carry Trump to victory in Wisconsin and Michigan.

Good to see that more voted neither Red or Blue.... this needs to happen more - especially in Congress.

Congressmen who are either Red or Blue should have no hope of winning.

The conversation should be - "Red and Blue are establishment" "I am not voting for someone who is establishment"

This is the only way to change the status quo.

When nothing much different happens under a Trump presidency I am hoping the raging masses will start to figure this out.

Notice that this election had a lower voter turnout than last. More apathy.

Perotista · Nov 11, 2016

thinkagain said:
Good to see that more voted neither Red or Blue.... this needs to happen more - especially in Congress.

Congressmen who are either Red or Blue should have no hope of winning.

The conversation should be - "Red and Blue are establishment" "I am not voting for someone who is establishment"

This is the only way to change the status quo.

When nothing much different happens under a Trump presidency I am hoping the raging masses will start to figure this out.

Notice that this election had a lower voter turnout than last. More apathy.

Very true. I have said many times that both major parties owe their heart and soul to corporations, wall street firms, lobbyists, special interests, mega money donors etc. as that is where they get their millions, tens of millions, hundreds of millions to run their campaigns and pay their bills. Neither Republicans or Democrats will bite the hand that feeds them. Now with a wink and a nod, they may let those moneyed elites, organizations etc. know they are going to talk bad about, but for those moneyed folks not to worry. They will do nothing to hinder their opperations

Or as one of my friends put it, "In this country we really have but one political party. But it has two wings, a Republican wing and a Democratic wing. Their rhetoric is polar opposite, but both govern about the same." I might add, take care of the same moneyed folks also, usually at the peoples expense.

Chomsky · Nov 11, 2016

countryboy said:
That's not at all what the EC was, or is about.

While it might be fair to argue the reasons to justify the EC were multifaceted, when Madison proposed the EC he did indeed declare the popular vote was best in electing a President, but the EC was necessary to compensate for the slavery vote problem in the southern states.

"The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."

Source: Yale Law - Minutes of the Constitutional Convention: Thursday July 19, 1787

Renae said:
The popular vote is meaningless.

Yes - but in American Presidential elections the popular vote is what's used to determine whether one has received a "mandate", or not, as declared by Fox. This is the topic of discussion.

RetiredUSN said:
So, I guess the votes of 10-11 heavily populated democrat cities should outweigh the the other 19,340 towns across the country?

Individual states having a say is considered racist?

How is mob rule supposed to be a more effective way?

What have cities & towns got to do with this? We're talking citizens voting here, and your proposing some citizen's votes should be worth less than others.

As to your declaration of racism, that's for you to judge. Madison proposed the EC to compensate for the southern states' slavery vote issues, as documented in my reply above to Countryboy.

And further: To declare one-man-one-vote as "mob rule" is disingenuous. The Constitution addressed this with forming our government as a representative republic, rather than a direct democracy. You can't conflate the Presidential voting process with that of the People's representation - which is through the House.

MaggieD said:
Guess you need the definition of "mandate."

Sorry. Who won again? Bunch of crybabies.

Context matters. Fox is using the term in the context of the American Presidential election; they are being deceptive. You're attempting to apply the generic term to a specific instance inappropriately.

BTW - the OP is not about winning or losing, but rather Fox's misrepresentation. That is the topic at hand, and the subject of my post.

RetiredUSN · Nov 11, 2016

Chomsky said:
While it might be fair to argue the reasons to justify the EC were multifaceted, when Madison proposed the EC he did indeed declare the popular vote was best in electing a President, but the EC was necessary to compensate for the slavery vote problem in the southern states.

"The people at large was in his opinion the fittest in itself. It would be as likely as any that could be devised to produce an Executive Magistrate of distinguished Character. The people generally could only know & vote for some Citizen whose merits had rendered him an object of general attention & esteem. There was one difficulty however of a serious nature attending an immediate choice by the people. The right of suffrage was much more diffusive in the Northern than the Southern States; and the latter could have no influence in the election on the score of the Negroes. The substitution of electors obviated this difficulty and seemed on the whole to be liable to fewest objections."

Source: Yale Law - Minutes of the Constitutional Convention: Thursday July 19, 1787

Yes - but in American Presidential elections the popular vote is what's used to determine whether one has received a "mandate", or not, as declared by Fox. This is the topic of discussion.

What have cities & towns got to do with this? We're talking citizens voting here, and your proposing some citizen's votes should be worth less than others.

As to your declaration of racism, that's for you to judge. Madison proposed the EC to compensate for the southern states' slavery vote issues, as documented in my reply above to Countryboy.

And further: To declare one-man-one-vote as "mob rule" is disingenuous. The Constitution addressed this with forming our government as a representative republic, rather than a direct democracy. You can't conflate the Presidential voting process with that of the People's representation - which is through the House.

Context matters. Fox is using the term in the context of the American Presidential election; they are being deceptive. You're attempting to apply the generic term to a specific instance inappropriately.

BTW - the OP is not about winning or losing, but rather Fox's misrepresentation. That is the topic at hand, and the subject of my post.

The electoral vote is needed more now than it ever was. The most populated 10-11 cities could easily tip the scales in one party's favor for eons.

Chomsky · Nov 11, 2016

thinkagain said:
There is a difference between saying "Trump has a mandate" and "the GOP have a mandate".

While I would agree that Trump has somewhat of a mandate, that mandate is to defy the establishment.

Defying the establishment means defying the GOP. So while Trump could be said to have a mandate ... the GOP does not.

I would still argue losing the popular vote in the general election is definitely *not* a mandate, in terms of the general populace or electorate at large. "Mandate" implies an overwhelming win.

But by winning his plurality within the GOP, it might be said he had a mandate within the party to tear the party up. However, that's not to be conflated with maintaining there was a Trump mandate from the general electorate outside the party!

Now it is fair to say the party defying the establishment prevailed in the Electorate College. But popular mandate? No way! Not without winning the popular vote! :doh

Chomsky · Nov 11, 2016

RetiredUSN said:
The electoral vote is needed more now than it ever was. The most populated 10-11 cities could easily tip the scales in one party's favor for eons.

Again, what the hey do cities have to do with the worth of an individual citizen's vote?

RetiredUSN · Nov 11, 2016

Chomsky said:
Again, what the hey do cities have to do with the worth of an individual citizen's vote?

Democrat strongholds?

You should already know this..................and I think you do.

Cardinal · Nov 11, 2016

RetiredUSN said:
The electoral vote is needed more now than it ever was. The most populated 10-11 cities could easily tip the scales in one party's favor for eons.

The electoral vote was specifically created to give voice to rural and remote citizens. Nothing has changed.

Chomsky · Nov 11, 2016

RetiredUSN said:
Democrat strongholds?

You should already know this..................and I think you do.

Of course I do, but then again: What has party affiliation to do with equal representation?

You seem to be attempting to use extraneous arguments to make the point for unequal representation in Presidential elections. Why should any American's vote be worth any more or less than others, based upon their geographical area or party affiliation?

The thing is: It's getting pretty hard in modern society to justify valuing some individual's votes less than others.

I have yet to hear an accurate & substantially persuasive argument as to why this should be. (this last not specifically addressing you)

Republiclowns on Fox pretending to have a mandate

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Yellow Dog Democrat

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Social Democrat

Social Democrat

Social Democrat

Respected On All Sides

Social Democrat