President Trump

I did not expect this result, predict or desire it, but I wrote on many occasions that I would enthusiastically support the president and I will. There will be positives and it is now our task to find them.

The American government is more than the American president and the American nation is greater, much greater, than both. The Republic will survive and thrive under president Trump.

One curious advantage is that Trump is not really a Republican. He is likely to unite Congress in ways that Bush, Obama or Hillary could not.

A micro advantage is that Trump's victory will provide a buying opportunity in the stock market.

Posted by Christine & John at November 9, 2016 8:08 AM
Comments
Comment #409743

I too will support President Trump. I hope that this leopard can change its spots and learn not to repeat the failures that have plagued his entire life.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 9, 2016 8:35 AM
Comment #409746

All nine billion of them?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 9, 2016 10:09 AM
Comment #409753

Why should Trump get the honeymoon with Democrats that Obama did not get? Why should I reward years of Republican Obstruction by letting them do whatever they want?

If you wanted a candidate who could actually unite the country, why did you go with one who just injected steroids into the the White majority? I won’t actively campaign against the interests of my country. I don’t need some terrorist attack against my country or some economic disaster, or whatever, and I won’t advise my people not to step in and help prevent those from escalating.

But I’m not going to encourage civility towards a candidate who won by breaching all levels of civility. You can’t act like a son of a ***** for years, and then turn around and act like you’re my new best friend!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 9, 2016 11:44 AM
Comment #409763

Trump encouraged crowds to chant “lock her up.” He promised to appoint a Special Prosecutor to go after Hillary Clinton.

And I am supposed to support him?

Face it. Democracy failed, and failed badly.

Trump’s first trial for fraud starts November 28th. The transcripts and the video are available online.

And I am supposed to support him/

Trump accused another opponent, Ted Cruz, of having five mistresses, and that his father was involved in the JFK assassination.

You really think supporting this guy is a good idea?

Am I supposed to pretend all those horrendous racist and bigoted comments did not happen, or that they are somehow ok? The misogyny? If you are not sure he said such things, let me know and I will start copying and pasting them into a comment.

This happened. And perhaps the most interesting thing of all, and barely noticed, is that the Russians successfully influenced an American election.

Posted by: phx8 at November 9, 2016 2:01 PM
Comment #409766

I didn’t vote for either Trump or Hillary but I never would of thought Trump would win, I thought Hillary would take this election. Now that Trump has won Facebook has lit up like a Christmas tree with negative comments about the election. Now we see on WB, Stephen crying like a little baby, phx8 with the Russian theory. W.P. with 1 positive comment. The left needs to get over their BOO HOOING. Your queen lost in a fair election. THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE HAS SPOKEN!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 9, 2016 2:33 PM
Comment #409768

Mr. Trump was not my first or second choice for president. Winning the nomination was shocking for many. Winning the presidency by Trump is hardly comprehensible.

Mr. Trump seized victory from the almost certain jaws of defeat. I am not smart enough to know how it happened. I am smart enough to know why it happened.

I and many others have said over and over again that Americans are angry and fed up with broken promises by the political elite and the continuing malaise of our nation.

The ACA is broken and needs to be dumped and replaced.

Our borders are broken and need to be fixed. We must provide more legal ways for immigrants to become citizens.

The Iran deal needs to be seriously re-thought and perhaps a new deal needs to be struck.

Our jobs must cease leaving our shores and efforts must be made to bring jobs back.

Respect for our Constitution and Law and Order must be restored.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2016 2:41 PM
Comment #409769

I voted for him. He he he he

Posted by: dbs at November 9, 2016 2:41 PM
Comment #409771

Stephen

I know you only through these epistles, but I would encourage you to lighten up. Bitterness hurts most the person feeling it.

I never supported Trump and wrote that right from the beginning. But he is now president of all Americans. Maybe you think it sucks; you have to embrace the suck.

When Obama was in office, you were outraged that Republicans did not fall into line behind him. I asked you at the time if you would feel the same way if the shoe was on the other foot. It is now.

Phx8

Democracy did not fail. That is how democracy works. When Obama was elected, I feared the worst. We survived. That is how our country works.

Royal

Good points. Most of us got this wrong. It should be a time for introspection. Whatever Trump found, we need to consider.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 9, 2016 2:56 PM
Comment #409772

KAP,
17 US intelligence agencies said the Russians were responsible for the cyber attacks that were published through Wikileaks. This was not the Russians first effort to interfere with elections. They also attempted to influence votes in France, Germany, and the Brexit vote in Britain. Their goal was to weaken western military and economic alliances, and to gain relief from sanctions. They were not solely responsible for the outcome, but they unquestionably influenced it.

RF
Like most people, I don’t really know what Trump will do. He has said things about immigration and Mexico, but he has reversed himself on that, so who knows? He wants to do something about trade, but once again, who knows? Everyone is stupid but he is smart.

He has surrounded himself with truly horrible people- Giuliani, Gingrich, Bannon (from Breitbart) and Christie. He is supported by hatertainers like Limbaugh and Hannity. Virtually no respectable politicians, Democratic or Republican, respect him.

This is not going to go well.

Posted by: phx8 at November 9, 2016 2:58 PM
Comment #409774
I and many others have said over and over again that Americans are angry and fed up

Some Americans are angry and fed up. Still more are satisfied with the way things are and they approve of Obama’s administration. Trump will face real challenges reconciling his revolutionary agenda with the plurality of people who voted for Clinton.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 9, 2016 3:05 PM
Comment #409775

phx8 And those same intelligence agencies said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. phx8 the electorate is not stupid, they see what has been going on for the last 8 years. Democrats and liberals blew it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 9, 2016 3:06 PM
Comment #409777

Hillary was just a very weak candidate. Biden could have beaten Trump. We should not take more from this lesson than it has to teach.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 9, 2016 3:09 PM
Comment #409778

I continue to find it difficult to understand why there were not more candidates in the field seeking the Democrat nomination. Was there a fear of retribution by the Clinton’s (Sanders excepted) or a belief that the Clinton’s could not be beaten twice?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2016 3:13 PM
Comment #409779

^ This. She lost in 2016 for the same reason she lost in 2008.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 9, 2016 3:13 PM
Comment #409782

Many of us considered it pure arrogance and nepotism for another Bushie or another Clinton to seek the presidency. We felt the Bush and Clinton fatigue. Apparently, others felt the same way.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2016 3:17 PM
Comment #409783

C&J I agree Biden would have beaten Trump probably by a wide margin.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 9, 2016 3:29 PM
Comment #409784

Royal

The Clinton machine smothered anybody who looked like a possible challenger to Hillary. She has been in line since 2004. Obama was a true anomaly that the Clintons did not see coming. They were more circumspect this time.

Hillary was like a big old tree, shading out anything that tried to grow underneath and sucking all the fertility out of the soil.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 9, 2016 3:35 PM
Comment #409785

Great analogy of Hillary c/j.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2016 3:44 PM
Comment #409787

This will be the first time in American history one political party will control all three branches of government without winning a plurality of the vote for any branch. More people voted Democratic than Republican for the Executive Branch, the House taken as a whole, the Senate taken as a whole, and they voted for a Democrat fill a Supreme Court seat, yet were denied.

Posted by: phx8 at November 9, 2016 4:24 PM
Comment #409788

Democrats had 29 governorship’s on the day Obama was sworn in. Today there are 15 (at this point according to RCP) Democratic governors.

When Obama came into office, Democrats controlled legislatures in 27 states. Today, it is 12 states.

This pleases me almost as much as Trump winning and the House and Senate still in Republican hands.

Ms. Clinton has received more votes nationwide than Trump and lost in the Electoral College. We are constantly reminded by our Democrat Pals that changing demographics will decimate the Republican Party. This certainly is not true today. Will it be true tomorrow?

Consider that the huge polling numbers racked up by Democrats come from a handful of large population states and cities. Is this where the newly enfranchised Hispanic voters are congregating? The huge majority of Black voters also are found primarily in our largest cities.

Look at the map of the United States after this election and observe the huge swath of red over an extensive land mass. Fortunately our founders gave us a president elected not by direct vote count, but by representational count.

There are currently 538 electors, corresponding to the 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, plus the three additional electors from the District of Columbia.

No matter how large some blue states and cities become, their population, and consequently, their representation in national elections will be based upon a proportional basis rather than on sheer numbers.

Some will call for election by popular vote. I do not find any evidence for a movement to change the Constitution. Does anyone believe that states would vote for an amendment that would diminish their already dwindling power?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2016 4:34 PM
Comment #409793
Some will call for election by popular vote. I do not find any evidence for a movement to change the Constitution. Does anyone believe that states would vote for an amendment that would diminish their already dwindling power?

There’s an inherent unfairness when a rural white voter gets more electoral power than an urban nonwhite voter. Maybe there’s no practical mechanism for implementing reform given the Constitution’s onerous requirements for amendment, but President Trump still ought to be aware that he lacks the mandate he would have if he had received more votes than Clinton.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 9, 2016 7:00 PM
Comment #409798

Warren

A rural non-white guy from a less populous state also gets relatively more weight than an urban white guy.

As a matter of fact, it is not urban-rural but large and small state. A poor black voter in Wichita, Kansas is worth more than a rich white one in rural California.

The “more votes” thing does not impress me. Neither candidate won a majority (i.e. more than half the vote) and when all the votes are counted, it will still be a statistical tie. I do not think that Trump would have a mandate if he beat Hillary by 100,000 votes.

Trump will end up with about 48% of the vote. Compare to Bill Clinton with 43% in 1992. He is the legitimate president and that is sufficient.

We have a republic, which is a representative form of democracy. A “true” democracy is impractical for any but a very small political entity, and it is unwise even there.

I would be against changing the system. A few weeks ago, it looked possible that Clinton would win the Electoral vote and lose the popular one. I would have accepted that too.

In this election the Electoral College did exactly what it was supposed to do. It make a clear victory out of a statistical tie. Imagine the trouble and the endless recounts we would have if we had a simple majority with the votes so close.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 9, 2016 7:27 PM
Comment #409799

I don’t see the “unfairness” Warren.

When a candidate can organize, rally, feed, and transport their base to the polls in a large and dense metropolitan city; would you call that “unfair” to the candidate that must travel many miles over much time to contact their base?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 9, 2016 7:28 PM
Comment #409803

I heard somewhere that the 4 largest populated states could determine who was elected and the other 46 states would never have the population necessary to win.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 9, 2016 7:38 PM
Comment #409805
A rural non-white guy from a less populous state also gets relatively more weight than an urban white guy.

As a matter of fact, it is not urban-rural but large and small state. A poor black voter in Wichita, Kansas is worth more than a rich white one in rural California.

The fact is that “small states” have fewer nonwhite voters. Even if there wasn’t a racial component, it is still somewhat unfair that rural interests have an inherent structural electoral advantages over urban ones.

Trump will end up with about 48% of the vote. Compare to Bill Clinton with 43% in 1992. He is the legitimate president and that is sufficient.
Bill Clinton earned MANY more votes than his opponents, so it was a different situation.
n this election the Electoral College did exactly what it was supposed to do. It make a clear victory out of a statistical tie. Imagine the trouble and the endless recounts we would have if we had a simple majority with the votes so close.
The Electoral College has its pluses and minuses and I just highlighted a minus. For whatever it is worth, the Electoral College is here to stay and we need to work within its confines.

Honestly, I’ve long considered first-past-the-post to be a far more flawed aspect of our electoral system than the Electoral College. I would prioritize any reform efforts in that direction.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 9, 2016 7:49 PM
Comment #409809

Warren

Equality is overrated. The guys who wrote the Constitution were trading stability for equality and it was a good bargain. In the modern U.S., you can choose to live in a different place if you are unhappy with the arrangements.

You, as a resident of Maryland, have a little more voting power than I do as a resident of Virginia. And, coincidentally, Maryland is slightly more urban and has a higher % of black residents, so it goes against the standard black-white, urban-rural.

Re Clinton with 43% - I just don’t see the significance of the distinction. He won more votes, but more also voted against him. He was the legitimate president because of the electoral system, but he was not the choice of most Americans. Legitimate is the key.

Re first past the post - what this ensures is that the winner gets lots of votes, even if sometimes not a majority. The Electoral College also tends to ensure this.

The idea that Madison pushed was that the best system would help prevent the creation of permanent majorities, or permanent interest groups, since each group would be forced to compromise to gain sufficient votes to become a majority. This worked.

Our Constitution is the oldest written one in the world. The British constitution is older, but it is not written in one place. It is also first past the post. Others have tried to be more “democratic” only to find their systems perverted and overthrown. The Wiemar Constitution was a wonder of democracy in theory. It lasted until overthrown by a horrible dictatorship As the Founders knew, Democracy was short-lived without balances. and the purer the form of Democracy the shorter its life.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 9, 2016 8:44 PM
Comment #409811

Wow, this thread sounds kinda like the ole WatchBlog of yesteryears.

Posted by: roy ellis at November 9, 2016 9:03 PM
Comment #409813
You, as a resident of Maryland, have a little more voting power than I do as a resident of Virginia. And, coincidentally, Maryland is slightly more urban and has a higher % of black residents, so it goes against the standard black-white, urban-rural.

Cherry pick your example if you wish.

but more also voted against him.
A vote for Perot was a vote for Perot. Nothing more, nothing less. Allegedly, about half of Perot supporters would’ve voted for Clinton if it had been a two candidate race.
Re first past the post - what this ensures is that the winner gets lots of votes, even if sometimes not a majority. The Electoral College also tends to ensure this.
Rank-order balloting always ensures the winner has the endorsement of a majority of voters.
The idea that Madison pushed was that the best system would help prevent the creation of permanent majorities, or permanent interest groups, since each group would be forced to compromise to gain sufficient votes to become a majority. This worked.

Our Constitution is the oldest written one in the world. The British constitution is older, but it is not written in one place. It is also first past the post. Others have tried to be more “democratic” only to find their systems perverted and overthrown. The Wiemar Constitution was a wonder of democracy in theory. It lasted until overthrown by a horrible dictatorship As the Founders knew, Democracy was short-lived without balances. and the purer the form of Democracy the shorter its life.

Rank order balloting (Single Transferable Vote & Instant Runoff Voting) were not even conceived of until the mid-19th century. I do not believe the founders gave this aspect adequate attention in drafting the Constitution. Also, understand that the two-party system that we’ve had for 216 years was not part of the founders’ plans despite being a direct consequence of the first-past-the-post electoral system.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 9, 2016 9:38 PM
Comment #409814

Warren

There are only 50 states. It is all a bowl of cherries. You cannot draw valid statistical conclusions.

I think the system works just fine. The problem is the divided electorate and the rise of identity politics. How can we make that go away.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 9, 2016 10:01 PM
Comment #409816

We can make it go away by putting the focus on state and local governments and not the one-size-fits-all inefficient federal government.

The federal government was supposed to be a government comprised and elected by the states and the people’s representatives (Electoral College). The 17th amendment expanded the scope to include the people in electing the federal government. That is why the people are spending the treasury and we have a 20 trillion dollar debt.

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 9, 2016 10:58 PM
Comment #409828

WW,

The “problem” you identify has is origins with universal male suffrage in the age of Andrew Jackson. The founders intended that we would be governed by an elite gentry and when that came to an end, the government largess for the common man began.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2016 8:16 AM
Comment #409834
quote textNeither candidate won a majority (i.e. more than half the vote) and when all the votes are counted, it will still be a statistical tie.

C&J, one more thing:

There’s a substantial number of uncounted votes in California and Washington. Forecasters still think Clinton’s popular vote margin over Trump is going to end up doubling. She’ll be a hair away from 50% soon enough.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2016 9:39 AM
Comment #409836

People are going to have to realize it’s a republic, not a democracy. If you are planning to abolish the Electoral College you might as well include abolishing the constitution as well.

Why stop there? If you abolish the Electoral College there’s no need for states. We might as well abolish states, also.

What purpose would they serve, right?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 10, 2016 10:17 AM
Comment #409837

Think of all the fun politicians would have gerrymandering state borders!

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 10, 2016 10:20 AM
Comment #409847

I wouldn’t abolish the Electoral College, but I would make representation in the Senate proportional to population. Again, a much higher priority reform would be to replace first-past-the-post voting with a ranked order system.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2016 12:00 PM
Comment #409849
Think of all the fun politicians would have gerrymandering state borders!

Maybe it is something that we should do. Maybe Brooklyn should be its own state. It certainly has enough people.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2016 12:06 PM
Comment #409851
The ACA is broken and needs to be dumped and replaced.

Allowing the fox to guard the chickens has caused damage to the ACA, what needs to be dumped and replaced are those that intentionally harmed the program through legislation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/us/politics/marco-rubio-obamacare-affordable-care-act.html?_r=0

Posted by: j2t2 at November 10, 2016 12:18 PM
Comment #409857

I did not vote for him but he is our President.

My daughter put it best, she is struggling how to explain to her children how we have a loud mouthed bully for a president and a centerfold wannabe for a first lady.

Of course I will continue to refer to him as the molester-in-chief because it’s “locker room talk”. Support? I don’t think so! I know there are some here who don’t know how I can say he is our President but I don’t support him. This would be the same bunch who have maintained that President Obama was not their President in so many despicable ways.

I’m making a pork shoulder this weekend for pulled pork sandwiches and calling the occasion a ‘pig in a poke’ party. Look it up, pretty apt description.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 10, 2016 4:00 PM
Comment #409860

Warren wrote; “The fact is that “small states” have fewer nonwhite voters.”

Without checking the “fact”, I wonder if Warren has an explanation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2016 4:23 PM
Comment #409866

Warren et al

I LIKE the way our Republic is not perfectly representative. It adds to stability. Equality is overrated. It is a means to the end of protecting human dignity, but not an end in itself.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 10, 2016 4:58 PM
Comment #409873

Nonwhites did not have the opportunity to benefit from the Homestead Act.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2016 6:53 PM
Comment #409875

Warren, how far back do you wish to go for blame and consternation? Who drew the boundaries of the original colonies and why?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 10, 2016 7:10 PM
Comment #409882

Warren

Re Homestead Act - None of my ancestors did either. I don’t know what % of the American population benefited from the Homestead Act. I am sure it was a significant number but not a majority.

Anyway, lots of other things have happened. In our own lifetimes, we have had all sorts of affirmative action and special set-asides.

When I was 18, I tried to get a summer job in Milwaukee. They had a test. It was the easiest test ever. You just had to color in a true or false. One question I recall showed a clock that said 9:00. The question was, “This is the time. Your boss told you to be at work at 8:00. Are you late?”

I got 100% and so did every other non-retard. BUT you had to have at least 110% to be hired. How do you get those 10%? By being minority. I objected to this because they made such an easy test. I could understand giving a few extra points, but given that 100% must have been average it was a way to exclude all “non-favored: groups

Posted by: Christine & John at November 10, 2016 8:19 PM
Comment #409883

Speaks

You know that a “pig in a poke” is a cat in a bag that they would sell as a piglet. The term, let the cat out of the bag comes from this.

Posted by: Christine & John at November 10, 2016 8:20 PM
Comment #409891

C&J,

Most people living in the Mountain West and Great Plains are descended from the beneficiaries of the Homestead Act. This is why few nonwhite people live in those small, sparsely populated states.

I LIKE the way our Republic is not perfectly representative. It adds to stability. Equality is overrated. It is a means to the end of protecting human dignity, but not an end in itself.

Have you seen the people protesting in the streets? This is not the most stable of outcomes. Perfect equality may be overrated (I do not think electing a President with a first-past-the-post popular vote is a good idea either), but the current system is overrated too. I’ve already suggested making Senate Representation proportional in a similar manner to the House. I’ve also suggested a rank-order balloting system such as Instant Runoff. These are ideas worth exploring.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 10, 2016 11:35 PM
Comment #409898

C&J, a cat, a pig, or anything else doesn’t matter. My concern would amount to some trepidation on what to expect. So far his rhetoric has been less than encouraging for those expectations. I am content to wait and see but for my wife, daughter, daughter-in-law, and granddaughters I am at a loss to explain why or how a ‘pig in a poke’ is somehow better for our country and our children.

My get together will be mostly devoted to how our country can find benefit from electing an avowed mysoginist but the only benefit I can come up with is to keep calm, carry on and fight for what you believe in. We will soon find out what is in the poke. You seem to think you already know but I sense you yourself doubt what you hope.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 11, 2016 8:13 AM
Comment #409923

Warren Porter, perhaps you should support a direct democracy. Technology will allow every citizen to vote on every issue at the federal level. Put it to the people and do away with the representative side of governing.

Abolishing the states and the electoral college will condemn the republican form of government. Why not call what you are suggesting what it is, a democracy?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 11, 2016 6:19 PM
Comment #410031

The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy. That said, the mechanism of representative Democracy is employed to ensure that our government rules with the consent of the governed.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 13, 2016 10:31 PM
Post a comment