I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that about 5 minutes and ten seconds after posting that, you did this: :smack:
No republican has won the popular vote since 1988.
To give him his due, Bush the Younger did actually do this in 2004. The greater point, which is that somehow the Republicans have managed to win three elections since 1988 while getting the most votes only once, is still a pretty damn good one.
Trump has already answered that. He said that if the popular vote was the thing, he would have campaigned in New York and California, and won even more easily. I swear, I am not making that up!
“If the election were based on total popular vote I would have campaigned in N.Y. Florida and California and won even bigger and more easily”
Tweet, Donald Trump
He put a black man on stage at every one of his events. His message was clear. The reign of the white man was over. It is time for payback. That’s why he made everyone get a gay abortion.
Between this post and the Slate Star Codex link, I’m feeling bad for my alarmism.
Trump is a mess–incompetent and therefore dangerous–but apparently not a white nationalist. He appeals to white nationalists because he’s a white man succeeding Obama. He is not really the candidate of their dreams.
Trump is dangerous, just in a different way. And the courts probably aren’t lost yet.
This paragraph, on the other hand! 1933 Germany is not unique. 1991 Yugoslavia? 2005 Iraq? The Congo region in the 1990’s?
Trump is probably not going to lead American police forces in a purge of non-whites. But he is a destabilizing force, and destabilization can lead to mass murder. I think the groundwork has been laid in right-wing media for civil war, and laid for a while. Even if Trump isn’t a white nationalist, he is going to be seen as an opportunity by those who do want to kill brown people and kill them a lot.
I’m sorry for the OP. I don’t have a way to edit it, though.
That said, I was calming down and then I started reading the ACLU’s Trump Memos. There’s still danger here.
I’ve been thinking a Trump loss might contribute to more rapid destabilization than a Trump win. People feeling disenfranchised, buried in violent rhetoric, would not likely have taken it well if Clinton had won. Especially because Trump most likely would have pitched a royal fit. It would have contributed to the oppressed narrative. Now that they have power, they will probably calm down a bit, and when Trump falls flat on his face, most reasonable people will finally understand what the NeverTrumpers already know. In a sense this may be conservatives’ Obama… A candidate they can get really excited about until they realize he’s not magic and then their disillusionment will likely dilute their power over the public narrative.
Frankly I’m way more frightened by Trump’s incompetence than his rhetoric. He appears to have the emotional maturity of an 11 year old and no real concept that actions have consequences. I don’t have a clear understanding of who his handlers will be or whether Congress will fall in line or obstruct him. That’s unsettling as hell, but again, not really sure there is anything that can be done this early in the game.
Well since Trump is already President and has started 14 wars and already murdered all non-white rich males. I’d say the war is over.
Unsurprisingly and in accordance with what we’ve come to expect from the peace, love and tolerance crowd, threats of physical injury and death are being rained down upon the nation’s Republican electors to get them to betray their constitutional duty and vote for Hillary Clinton instead of Donald Trump.
Cite (Google page full of links referencing this behavior)
Surely if this reprehensible conduct should be successful the Republicans will take the issue to the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see how the equally divided court would rule, given that: a) the electoral college result was accomplished through coercion by threat of physical harm or death; and b) if successful, an electoral college voting contrary to the majority of its states’ votes defeats the purpose of having an electoral college in the first place.
In my opinion such a hijacking of constitutional process would not be allowed, even by the Supreme Court’s liberal judges.
I prefer practical advice to rants, myself.
Bless their hearts, that’s as dumb as a sack of wet mice.
Read the Federalist Papers and get back to us. Serving as a firewall between the levers of power and the Teeming Millions is the purpose of the Electoral College in the first place.
Oh, you mean like The Art of the Deal? His ghostwriter Tony Schwartz tells about the real Trump in a very long article here, summed up thusly:
This. I won’t have any part in “normalizing” any of his bullshit. For Chrissake, he just went all stupid over a Saturday Night Live episode. WTF.
What a fucking crybaby little bitch.
Yes! And demanded an apology from some actors because they addressed his V-P-elect in the theater.
THE MAN IS NOT NORMAL. He has the emotional maturity of a toddler.
It’s true that I haven’t read the Federalist Papers, I have more than a vague doubt that the framers of the Constitution intended that the Electoral College vote should be determined by which side gets the most death threats.
Thelma Lou:
“The Art of the Deal” doesn’t remotely resemble a political manifesto.
You are the one making the crazy predictions. How come they didn’t escalate the way you imagined?
Nice cherry picking.
I know. You could also say it isn’t in German. And it’s only 246 pages instead of 430. And point out lots of ways the two books are different.
But one of the ways they’re the same is that Trump’s book does reveal the man Trump and how he operates, and the article by Schwartz reveals him even more.