the electoral college.

is it possible to change this abomination known as the electoral college? it's already cost the democrats two elections.
can the people get enough resolve to finally recognize the democratic principal as THE POPULAR VOTE !!

The last time that the candidate who won the popular vote didn't get into office, it resulted in one of the worst presidencies ever. There's something about having a president that most of the country doesn't want that just has a bad vibe. Won't bode well for Trump, that's for sure. Could be why he's already moving to the center. Between this and the mass protests, the writing is on the wall.

It'd take a Constitutional amendment to get rid of the Electoral College.

Get rid of the Electoral College and there will be an unbalanced system. Meaning a candidate would only have to campaign in cities instead of the countryside and win. That is unfair. This system was put in place for a reason. Equal representation. If you have a problem with this system, then I suggest you fix the gerrymandering going on in districts.

Or the Democrats can just embrace the angry rural white folks, as the NY Times suggested, even going so far as to criticize the Dems for considering Keith Ellison as DNC chair. ugh. What a difference a day makes. It's like 2004 all over again.

fixing the gerrymandering would be a great start to reform, we do need something better, the electoral college is outdated

then lets have the amendment.

The Founders created the electoral college to give all the states a fair shake at electing a president. Without it, many states wouldn't have representation at all. That was the point of founding the United States -- that we have many different states that are united together.

Anyway, there will (probably) never be an amendment to get rid of the electoral college. In order for a constitutional amendment passed it would require approval of 38 states -- including a lot of those states that would lose out by passing the amendment.

Getting rid of it also brings us closer to a tyranny of the majority. This is like Binnie's neighbors getting together and with a 51+% of the vote decide to confiscate his house. To avoid this, the Founders believed in checks and balances, wise men, and the rule of law.

If you want fairer representation within the electoral college system then get rid of "winner take all" and make it proportional. Winner take all isn't fair because a candidate can win with 51% of the vote and the other voters are totally disenfranchised. Currently every state except Maine and Nebraska have winner-take-all elections. It's a much easier fix than a Constitutional amendment.

Candidates campaign differently in order to win electoral college votes. And most likely people's choice wether to vote or not is influenced by this system.

for example, a Trump supporter in California might not bother to vote at all, knowing their state isn't go to elect their candidate anyway, so that's less votes overall that go away. It also works the other way around too. Many people will vote 3rd party as a protest vote, if they don't live in a swing state but would otherwise have went with one of the major candidates had the popular vote been the way to win. So it still isn't clear that the final outcome would've been the same or different.

The founders were genius I posted a you tube on another thread you should look at it.

It done so it is very hard to fix an election.

As was hinted above, if they counted only the popular vote then strategies would change, and we don't really know how things would turn out.

In a practical sense, eliminating the College would make presidential elections fabulously expensive, even by current standards, because the state boundaries do let the candidates identify safe, swing, and lost areas and decide where to allocate money.

As mentioned above, the College makes fraud less beneficial, because its effect is restricted to one state. In 1860, Lincoln drew only about 25,000 votes in slave-holding states, with about two-thirds of those around St. Louis. That wasn't because no one there wanted to vote for him - it was because he was left off ballots and votes that were cast weren't counted. He was credited with less than 5% of the votes in those states, but the damage was limited to those states and Lincoln took the election winning all of the states that honest elections.

People assert that Lincoln's election was a fluke because there were four candidates in the field, but he took more than 50% of the vote in states with 167 electoral votes, out of a total of 303 available.

We have to get an election where Republicans win the popular vote but not the electoral, just to compare their reactions to what they're saying now.

[quote=OakAsFan]We have to get an election where Republicans win the popular vote but not the electoral, just to compare their reactions to what they're saying now. [/quot

yes, a taste of their own medicine.

getting rid of winner take all seems like a good option. I hope there is talk in congress of new proposals, getting rid of the current system.

The thing is, each state determines for itself if it's doing winner-takes-all or proportional. The best thing you can do is to work in YOUR state to rescind the current system.

Hello everyone, long time since I've been here. Personally I don't think electoral college is a bad thing. In fact, for the reasons mustachepete mentioned, it's a great thing. I've always liked how the US's election results come out before all the votes have been counted. You can't change the rules when they aren't in your favor. And many people didn't vote because they knew they live in a state that their vote didn't matter, so you can't say Clinton would've won the popular vote if the rules were different.

She wasn't a likable or charismatic person. The fact that Obama beat her in the primary, or someone like Bernie Sanders who had almost no chance in the beginning, but at the end was putting her campaign in danger goes to show how she was not popular within the democratic party, let alone the country. Democratic party had greater and younger potential candidates like Cory Booker, Castro brothers, heck, even the old Elizabeth Warren, but she made sure they wouldn't run to ensure her nomination. She just was not going to win. But I doubt even if you shouted this into her face, she would have accepted it.

On Cory Booker he sold his soul to some in the Democratic Party when Romney ran against Obama.

His city made a lot of money investing in Romney's money fund for his city of Newark. When Obama ran against Romney he denounced the Romney fund and Romney personally.

Just another low life that fucks his friends.

I hate people who fucks their friends for any reason. Friends are hard to come by at least for me.

My oldest friend is still my friend today because when he is your friend he is your friend no matter what you may have done in the past.

No way, Cory Booker can not be trusted. Elizabeth Warren doesn't want to run for president. These names are what the media puts out there.

Warren only didn't want to run because Hillary paid her a visit. If Hillary had not run, Warren would have. And it's a pity that she didn't do it anyway. Now someone who really doesn't want to run, is Michelle Obama. Booker has a charismatic character. I think anyone of them could've beaten any other candidate from GOP.

It was always about the economy and trump has more experience in that realm then anybody else. He would have won anyway if he could shut his big mouth and just ran on that issue.

On warren isn't she the one who was 1/20th Indian, but went to college on a minority schorlorship. Had the hell did she over come that lie.

I don't agree with majority rule or mob rule, which is what pure democracy truly is. Instead we have a republic thing going on which allows the minority to veto things that might interfere with their most basic and innate rights.

Democrats might have lost this election to the unpopular vote, maybe, we shall see, but Democrats definitely did not lose the election to Bush Jr. due to the electoral college. That was election theft and the Supreme Court intervening. From what I understand, if a full recount were permitted, Al Gore would have won not only the popular vote, but also the electoral college majority.

they are still counting votes, and Hillary is up 1.8 million votes, with a million more to be counted in calif. that's a huge lead, and reflective of the no-sense electoral college.
a stolen presidency?

That's not true at all. Following the decision the Washington Post and the Miami Herald did their own investigations and concluded that Bush would have won. Neither newspaper has a history of being pro-GOP, by the way. And don't forget that Gore wanted to prevent the military ballots from being counted, and they generally are more GOP-friendly.

I'm not really replying to the poster, but for next person who comes along: when the system was made up over 200 years ago, hardly anyone lived in cities and California was sort-of subject to Spain. You can argue the merits of the Electoral College system, but the notion that people back then were designing the system to steal elections today is just ludicrous.

Don't forget binnie they are going to steal your social security away from you as well.

Instead of trying to win the small states during the election instead just campaign in the big states. Fuck the small states not enough people to give a shit about.

Just try to get votes in the big states And no where else.

To bad when your SS gets taken away your going to starve to death no more pizza for you but their is always dog food.

+1 @Faithful1
Gore was trying to prevent the votes from the military personnel back then, cause that would have given Bush a huge advantage.

I remember that Gore the invented of the internet and saver of global warming flyers around in a jet that pollutes the air another hippo crit is he still fat?

LOL, what Gore actually did when he was Senator Albert Gore of Tennessee, was write the legislation to expand the Department of Defense communication network known as ARPNET. Once the law was passed, ARPNET was expanded into what we call the internet today. The scientists that created the internet give Albert Gore the credit for making it a reality.

Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle...

FactCheck.Org

Agree and this is why the electoral college was created.

It's also possible that while the electoral college was created to give sparsely populated areas the same voice as densely populated areas, at some point the system began to be manipulated by political forces just looking to maintain white male christian dominance of the national agenda.

"Recount" is a pretty good movie about how Bush stole Florida in the 2000 election.

Washington post owner owns Amazon let the far left buy from Amazon I will never buy from them again.

Both Obama and Bill Clinton won two terms, where is the republican corruption?

Yes, definitely go watch it if you like fictional films. Jumanji, Star Wars, Jaws and Jurassic Park are also entertaining movies that have little in common with the real world.

Uh, no. You might actually want to read what the Constitution says and its explanation in Federalist 39 of the Federalist Papers before pulling "facts" out of the air. As myself and others wrote, the House of Representatives gives voice based on population, and the Senate and the Electoral College give fair voice to states. Otherwise, only the most populated states like California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois and Pennsylvania -- but mostly California -- would dictate control of the country. The less populated states would have no say whatsoever in how a president is elected. If states weren't given fair participation in the federal process they wouldn't have been motivated to form the United States in the first place.

To make matters worse, since the amount of federal members of the House of Representatives is based on population, California and other Democratic Party-controlled states encourage undocumented immigrants to move to their states. Yes, illegal immigrants are counted in the census. If California lost its illegal population it would lose representatives in the House.

Recount is not a fictional film. It very accurately portrays the events of the 2000 election.

Like I said, a work of fiction. The Washington Post and Miami Herald did their own separate investigations and concluded that Bush won. Since both papers tend to support Democrats, their conclusion was contrary to their interests, which makes it (their shared conclusion) even more credible. On the other hand, Recount was written by Left wing hack Danny Strong for the Left wing cable network HBO, so it has ZERO cred. Films are inherently biased and can create their own reality. If you think Recount is unbiased and objective, please let me when you'll be buying my beachfront property in Arizona.

Your theory relies on the "Media is 100% loyal to Democrats" myth.

Another claim pulled out of thin air, unless you have a source that says "the media is 100% loyal to the Democrats." Even conspiracist Alex Jones doesn't go that far. My only claim is that the media, in general, is overwhelmingly biased towards the Left. That includes being biased toward the Democrats, but no one has said it's 100% or close to that figure. But even before Trump came along as a GOP candidate, Hollywood and the media was known to be biased toward Democrats by about 70-90%. There's been a lot of studies done, studies that you probably have no idea exist since you already admitted you get most of your news from social media.

There is absolutely no evidence that the media is "overwhelmingly biased towards the left". None. It's an oft repeated theory on the right that has little to no basis. In fact, when you consider the ownership of the media, there is more evidence that the media leans right than there is that it leans left.

So, your argument that two newspapers "concluded" that Bush would have won Florida has absolutely no merit. The votes weren't counted. Nobody will ever know. And, the movie "Recount" is a very accurate portrayal of the events surrounding that election. I highly recommend it.

This is funny. If Hillary had been elected their would be not a peep about the electoral college. Nada. She loses but wins the popular vote and it's sour grapes. Everybody should just support President Trump and quit whining. That being said when Obama won twice I didn't burn a flag or go on midnight protests. Too busy working and raising children. Got people wanting to make it the popular vote like it's American Idol.

Trump was the one who said before the election that he wouldn't accept the results. Consider this the first promise he broke, of hundreds I'm sure.

[quote=OakAsFan]Trump was the one who said before the election that he wouldn't accept the results. Consider this the first promise he broke, of hundreds I'm sure. [/quote}]no use crying over spilled milk. Embrace your new president or leave the country bud. Don't know what to tell you. Just don't act like it's the first time a candidate lied to you.

Yeah those white christian males are some evil bastards let me tell ya.

Don't worry. Trump is going to be embraced just as much as Obama was.

Honestly I don't give a damn if anybody embraces him or not. At the end of the day it will be more money in my pockets for me and my family. And no , we don't take government assistance or handouts. We take care of ourselves with government help.

Good to see Trump's supporters have their fellow citizens in mind.

Well, he they really don't. It's kind of the shoe on the other foot revenge for the last 8 years. Good luck. Least we didn't cry and burn the U.S. Flag. We persevered through it. Shoe is on the other foot now. Bye Bye Birdie.

Oh, and as I said, Trump can expect the same loyalty from this country that Obama received. These things cut both ways, you know?

Actually you guys cried a lot, but you did not burn the American flag. On the subject of flag burning, it is protected by the first Amendment, the problem is that a lot of people don't know you need to get a burning permit to do that within city limits.

My memory is foggy. Good thing about the internet age and social media everything is on video. If you can will you show me videos of protests aftet the 2008 or 2012 election. Thanks Pal.

"Absolutely no evidence..." That's funny from someone who gets all his news from social media and makes absolute statements out of pure ignorance.

Have you read this? https://books.google.com/books/about/The_media_elite.html?id=b-VoAAAAIAAJ

How about this? http://qje.oxfordjournals.org/content/120/4/1191.short

Here's another: http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp

Then after you falsely claim that there's no Left-wing bias in the media you toss the old canard about "corporate bias", as if corporate bias is somehow Right-wing. Aside from Rupert Murdoch you're not going to find any Right-wing bias. The owners of ABC News, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, MTV, the Comedy Channel, CNBC and CNN, as well as papers like the New York Times, Washington Post, etc., are all on the political LEFT. Yes, there's corporate bias -- Left-wing corporate bias. Look at the news hosts: Chuck Todd, Chris Matthews, George Stephanopolous, etc. -- they all worked for DEMOCRATS before working in the media.

Then you use your series of bogus claims as a refutation of the investigations done by the Washington Post and Miami Herald, which it does nothing of the kind. Then you assert what they did has no merit although it's clear that you haven't read what they wrote and you're probably ignorant about it and wouldn't even be aware of those studies had I not mentioned them.

Take the red pill and get out of the Matrix.

Birther movement.

Tea Party groups bringing rifles to Obama's speeches.

Congressman Joe Wilson screaming at Obama during a speech to congress

Republicans in congress vowing to block every item on Obama's agenda.

Those are just a few things.

I don't see any reason why Trump shouldn't get the same love and support, right everyone?

There is no evidence that the media is on the political left, Faithful.

You're posting links to books as sources? Why not just cite the specific arguments in those books? You think I'm going to read an entire book tonight? Come on. I just got done watching the game.

This notion that the media is liberal is just something Republicans like to say whenever the media holds them accountable for something. It's a lazy, baseless retort that that conservatives at the ground level have bought into and eventually started repeating themselves as if it were fact.

When you look at the ownership of media, it is certainly no liberal bunch. The media has become increasingly consolidated by corporations over the years. Not exactly hippies.

It's a myth, Faithful1. The media is about marketing, ratings, and the stock. Nothing more. If anything, they lean right.

Lol. Sounds like pretty mild stuff in comparison to the way people are reacting to Trump's win.


That's a good thing. Boggles my mind when people say this as of this is an act of terrorism.

If any good comes of this, maybe the Left will be more open to decentralization of powers. Some talking secession in California. Not that it's about to happen but, the idea behind it is good. This all 50 states "are one" shit is insane.

Sorry, you were talking about the general public, I thought you were talking about the Republican leaders. My bad. No nothing like that on the Republican side.

Oak, you are putting the tea party in with the Republicans, that's not right. Tea baggers are insane in general. From your logical stand point you would put the Libertarian party in with the Democrats, which is untrue. That asshole Bill Maher is not the spokesman for the Libertarian party.

SCG,

I agree that California wouldn't secede. The nation needs us. Without our agriculture and entertainment (including tech, internet), the United States would be in the dark ages. California would never do that to you.

Vacari,

I sure as heck didn't invent the term tea party Republican. Not sure who coined the phrase in pop culture. I know Sarah Palin has identified with the movement. She was on the Republican ticket in 2008.

Not sure where you're going with your point about Libertarians and Bill Maher. Never said anything about them.

I come at you with facts and you come back with unsubstantiated opinion. Nothing new here, except that what little cred you have continues to shrink.

Don't know if you went to college or even high school, but they do have these things called books. These books provide information for learning. Learning is good.

By the way, one of the links was an article, not a whole book. So you could have read it and still watched the Seahawks beat the Patriots. Anyway, they refuted your silly claim that there's no evidence of bias. And the silly "corporate bias" claim I destroyed, so why are you still bringing it up? Do you even know who owns the New York Times? Do you know anything about them?

You did not prove that the media is liberal. It's an opinionated argument, anyway. But since you said you could prove it, I was interested in seeing what you would come up with, sort in the way I'd be interested in seeing a picture of Bigfoot. Sure enough, you posted the same fake picture of Bigfoot that's been passed around for years. Considering the ownership of the media, it is more likely the media leans right of center than left. But of course this is a matter of opinion as well. I can admit that. You just go on stating as fact that the media is liberal, even though it'll never be anything more than an opinion of yours.

I'm happy trump won. His election ensures the protection of the second amendment. At the same time he's gonna put in place policies that will help grow our economy and protect our borders. 4 years is a long time, I don't expect it all to happen right away, but over time it will.

Secession doesn't have to mean complete isolation. We have free trade between the states now, and it would be foolish to change that even if a state left the union.

Well it would be up to California. I guess we'd have to see how the other states are behaving themselves. And you know what our social standards are here.

That won't happen. All this talk of California breaking away from the union is just venting from frustration. If anything, California needs to break into two or three states. Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco get most of the state revenues, which angers most of the state population.

Not sure how that's possible as I'm pretty sure the population of the LA, SF and Sacramento areas combined would make up for the majority of the state's population.

It may not happen now, but at least more people will be aware of that idea and possibility.
There's no reason Texas should tell California what to do or vice versa, or New York tell Alabama what to do etc.
Why is one guy elected president over 300+million people? Why don't people question the absurdity? Washington DC governs California. Why?

It would not be up to California.There is nothing more I would like to see than the State of California go and be a part of Mexico though.

I think you really do make a lot of sense. the united states is more like a continent, look at Canada, separate provinces. and why should 9 people [the supreme court] interpret laws to 320 million. giving states more rights would be a good start, if states vote to legalize pot, the government should let them alone. not send in feds to bust people. one day it will all come to a head, and the federal government will have to bend to the states. remember the states make the government. and together the states can break the government.

Recreational marijuana is already becoming legalized in a few states. It's not just medicinal anymore. That might be the only way to hold the union together...allow each state to express it's local culture. Otherwise you'll have more calls for secession.

I invest to supplement my income I get emails on this. It said this was passed in 8 states. I have no interest in investing in this.

They are looking for people to invest in grass. I rather invest in businesses that cut real grass.

I would not mind if California broke away from the United States and sink in the ocean.

My friend sends me a picture over looking a forest. I am thinking if a fire breaks out he is dead. I also think watch out for bears. I do that all time I do it when I visit my kids new houses.

I ever tell you guys I go over my daughters house for a barbque I am in the house playing with my grand daughter. I hear her yelling to us to get out of the house. I thinking what the hell us going on. Well her barbque that she brought with her evidently was damaged in the move and caught fire near the propane tank. They call the fire department its volunteer. By the time they come the house would have burned down and the surrounding forest would have caught fire.

So I get the fire extinguisher and go in the back yard. Everyone is telling me to get out of there. First I move the barbque from near the house and into open space. I burn my arm doing it. Then I put out the fire. Spray the tank then 25 minutes after that the firemen in their truck show up.

I tell the firemen my wife of over 50 yrs is yelling at me to get out. I say she must still love me. Then I tell them she was calmer when the planes hit the wtc she worked there that day.

My grand kids were on the fire truck my son took pictures ,:)

Then my kids say what now. I say let's buy another barbque already put together and another tank and do it. So we did it we started to eat 10 at night.

You are correct. What I always try to get across to people is that, the less power the Feds and the president have, the less hysterical people would have to be when someone you don't like gets into office. There's nobody that will please the overwhelming majority of the people. Different cultures, different educational backgrounds, different life experiences, different occupations, and difference biases.
State and city government's do bad things too but it's easier to leave a city or state than the country. It is also easier to influence your local government than the Federal government. The more power is centralized, the less power to the individual.
When half the country always feels threatened when the opposite party gains power at the federal level, it's time to question the system.

Saying something like "States Rights" in the South will get you branded as a racist. So will seceding from the Union.

California is the worst state I have ever visited. Took us to an "authentic" Mexican restaurant. Instead of cheese dip they had yogurt. Sucked. I prefer my "fake" Mi Toro restaurant in Mississippi. Only Mexicans work there so I don't know how it's considered Tex-Mex and not authentic, but I won't argue with the Yankees. It's pointless, and they're never wrong.

You sure that was California and not Arizona?
Worst state? New Jersey. You know, that State known as New York's outhouse, that's New Jersey.

Here in NYC we send our garbage to New Jersey. Unfortunately some of the best Sicilian pie places also moved to NJ. Also some children are stupid enough to want to move to New Jersey even if those areas are considered nice.

about secession, a lot of people miss understand the idea of secession, going back to the articles of federation, each state was separate, ruling themselves. this was the original intent of this nation. separate states. look at it today, some states the land the federal govt, owns is more than the state owns. how can you be a state when the govt owns a large percentage of your land.that led to the standoff in Nevada, a state should own ALL OF THEIR LAND. it all goes back to the civil war, after the war the north did not try jefferson davis on war crimes. because the south was RIGHT IN THEIR LEGAL ARGUMENT.. the 10th amendment does give the states the right to secede, worth remembering the states joined the union voluntarily, and they legally have the right to leave it.

The Supreme Court decided the constitutionality of secession in Texas v. White. The decision stated that beginning with the Articles of Confederation the agreement between the states to form a union was to "be perpetual." The court also stated that when the states agreed to "form a more perfect Union" there was nothing that more clearly asserted the belief in their indissoluble unity.

This decision was reinforced by conservative darling, Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote in 2006 wrote that if there was any single right decided by the Civil War it was that there is no right for a state to secede from the union.

What a horrible precedent. And an evil ruling. So all 50 states together, forever and ever, no matter what? Why not take over Canada then and make them a "state"? Or is 50 just a magical number?

Correct. Can you imagine, if the deal was "once you're in, you can never get out." Then none of the state's would've ever joined.

Nothing magic about 50. In fact, there were only 37 states when SCOTUS ruled on Texas v. White.

So it's good to add more states but it's bad should one or more ever try to leave the union?

Only if you're a Southern State, in which case you are racist.

The amount of racism in the south does stand out compared to other regions.

I don't think it does, oak, racism in the north has always been as bad or worse, when the govt promoted forced busing in the north in the 70s, they met with as much hostility as they did in the south, when the govt shoved civil rights down peoples throats, the north and the south both resisted.

Research how people from Boston reacted to the busing desegregation for starters.

the people of boston's reaction to busing was as violent as anything that ever happened in the south. and it should have been!! forced busing was a slap in the face to every man woman and child in the united states, it never went to a popular vote! was forced by the government under penalty of law, and was unconstitutional!!!

The Great State of Michigan was just certified as a Trump WIN giving all of MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN supporters another victory - 306!

http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/numbers-shut-liberals-electoral-college

Something to think about. Democratic party has become regional.

Recounts should be interesting.

The major papers saying it won't affect the outcome...but they've been wrong before.

And so have you!

Recount is a bad idea. There is/was some level of fraud in every election BUT once the election is over you have to live with the results. If the final electoral vote was close..legitimately it would make sense to recount, but that's not the case.

It's especially a bad idea because this country bends over backwards trying to preach the virtues of democracy to other countries.

That is one of the differences between this and developing countries. The rule here is peaceful seamless transition of power.

How do we know it was close without recounting?

The irregularities surrounding the voting machines are too many to name.

As far as other countries go, lol, they stopped taking our democracy seriously a long time ago...probably in 2000. Us little Americans all huddled up with our big screen tvs and credit cards might buy that all the votes were counted in Florida, but the world knows what happened. They've seen this. All we're showing the world is how much of a hypocritical joke we are. They might be pleasantly surprised to see the American people stand up against what is likely the second stolen election in two decades.

oak i can speak as a foreigner we don't think the election has been rigged and we do think you have democracy we just think the US is crazy place lol but that's not a new thing.


i don't like the US not the people living there but your leaders and government its your arrgroance which annoys me you guys have been bullies for a long time only difference between you and Russia is the US tries to pretend it has moral purposes while Russia and China is they don't try to hide they are scumbags. Obama came of at times as wanting do actually do some good for world but still dident like him better than bush Clinton trump but that's not saying much.



Anyway Russia are no longer a superpower they just pretend to be US is a dying superpower China will never be the superpower worldwide the west wont allow it not while China is a dictatorship they cant act how they do in China elsewhere in the world it will be Chinas eventual demise. So whos the future superpower it will be interesting if the EU does not break up it could become it i mean once the UK they can finally make there fucking EU army they want to be like the US the EU they want each country to be like states in the US i think they are secretly delighted the UK is leaving now they can do what they always wanted.

But if the EU does break up and it could potentially who knows what the world will look like in 20 years look at the problems it is facing if LePen wins in France it will change Europe forever if Renzi loses his referendum in Italy (and i think he will) there will be a new election five star movement i think will win then Italy could be the next to leave the EU it is very likely that will be the end of Italy it will spilt into pieces the North want Add to dictionary badly they don't like the south because of the poverty and crime which they bring to Italy. Spain will eventually collapse what they are doing to Catolan people is disguating 80% said they want to leave Spain but Madrid wont let them they know there is too much money in areas like Barcenlona but it will fall apart these sort of countries never work. Austria could be having a racist nutjob as there leader. Holland has a big anti EU feeling at the moment and Germany are seeing the rise of the AFD

Glad to know you speak for ALL non- U.S. citizens, GR. I guess that clears that up. lol.

If you believe that, then do you also support recounts in the states that Hillary won that were close? Should there be recounts in Nevada, New Hampshire, Michigan and Minnesota too? After all, Hillary won by a slimmer margin in those states than the ones Trump won. How about California, where there's a history of undocumented immigrants voting?

oak no calls in the media no politicians no one i have spoken to has talked about being proud that you guys are redoing your votes in some states nor have i heard about your system being undemocratic until this election like i have said to you many times oak its your country who are we to judge how you elect your leaders i care about what you guys do to the rest of us because dying superpower or not you are still currently the most powerful nation in the world what the US actions effect everyone

the rest i said about the hatred is true you travel the world oak get peoples views on the US your deluded if you think the US is liked abroad you guys ruined the middle east leaving us to deal with the mess caused chaos in Asia in the Balkans in Africa helped fuck the economy i can give you a long list of examples if you want

There's no reason to recount the states Hillary won that are close. There's no valid suspicions of any problems there. Just asinine tweets by Trump.

I would start the recount beginning at the Democratic primaries.
Who says Hillary won ? It was Bernie that was getting the big crowds and wiki-leaks proved that DNC ceo Wasserman Schultz was colluding with the Hillary campaign staff to overthrow Bernie.

Even if that were true, it would be for the better. Republicans were salivating for Bernie because he would be so easy to beat on foreign policy. In the post 9/11 world, some of Bernie's stances on issues are political 3rd rails. Trump would have destroyed Bernie. He barely beat Hillary, and it hasn't even been determined that he beat her yet. There might be recounts. Plus, one of the reasons the electoral college is in place is to prevent crazy people like Trump from becoming president. We'll see what the electors do.

oak what you have just said Is contradicting your whole point I do agree with you guys deserve a recount to make sure it was fair its democracy but what you just said about sanders contradicts that your basically saying you agree with cheating as long as its your candidate

you like that idea look at Russia you need to respect others views even if you disagree you live in a democracy respect it if Clinton cheated in the primaries then she deserves to be punished just like Trump

and as for berine oak I am not sure your the best political predictor if my memory is correct you said Clinton would win by a landslide

Spin it anyway you want Hillary cheated.

Well, GR, they say the only rule in cheating is don't get caught.

Like the democrats that were salivating for Trump because they were so sure he would be easy to beat. So much for conventional wisdom.

Democrats certainly underestimated Trump's ability to get what he wants. We just might find out how he did it.

Everyone knows how he did it except you.

Nah Oak. I think it was somewhere around January of 2009.

Barely beat Hillary? 306 to 232 is not a close race Oak. Keep believing that though. Congrats on Pelosi being Minority Leader again though. It proves y'all have learned absolutely nothing about the hardworking American people and pretty much assures America will have the Republican Presidency, House, and the Senate for years to come. Keep it up with your high handed educational ways. Working out great so far.