Trump Administration

[Tacachale]

Well, lets see. Maybe she won 250 of the 3,141 -- okay? That make baby feel all better?

Is the electoral college landslide made up? Is the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton, even in the face of two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone, made up? Or Obama's CIA convincing a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah made up?

Look, the man took every shot from every direction -- and was the last one standing.

Ouch, indeed !!!

Clinton "won" at least 487 out of 3141 counties.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/clinton-counties/

There wasn't an "electoral landslide". Depending on how you count it, up to 8 of the last 17 elections have had wider margins, including Obama's wins. Trump got 57% of the electoral college.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/nov/21/reince-priebus/despite-losing-popular-vote-donald-trump-won-elect/

I have no idea what you're talking about with "two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone". There was one Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson; he's not an "establishment Republican", and he wasn't running to defeat Trump.

The conspiratorial claim that "Obama's CIA convinc[ed] a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah" isn't worth dignifying.

Clinton's defeat was stunning, I'll give you that. Otherwise, yes, all your other claims do appear to be "made up".

[Tacachale]

Well, lets see. Maybe she won 250 of the 3,141 -- okay? That make baby feel all better?

Is the electoral college landslide made up? Is the stunning defeat of Hillary Clinton, even in the face of two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone, made up? Or Obama's CIA convincing a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah made up?

Look, the man took every shot from every direction -- and was the last one standing.

Ouch, indeed !!!

Clinton "won" at least 487 out of 3141 counties.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/12/clinton-counties/

There wasn't an "electoral landslide". Depending on how you count it, up to 8 of the last 17 elections have had wider margins, including Obama's wins. Trump got 57% of the electoral college.
http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/nov/21/reince-priebus/despite-losing-popular-vote-donald-trump-won-elect/

I have no idea what you're talking about with "two establishment Republicans running as libertarians for the express purpose of defeating Trump and Trump alone". There was one Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson; he's not an "establishment Republican", and he wasn't running to defeat Trump.

The conspiratorial claim that "Obama's CIA convinc[ed] a Mormon to run for the express reason of denying Trump a victory in Utah" isn't worth dignifying.

Clinton's defeat was stunning, I'll give you that. Otherwise, yes, all your other claims do appear to be "made up".

Actually, Trump's electoral victory is only the 46th widest margin out of 58 elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_Electoral_College_margin

[JeffreyS]

We actually won't know the electoral margin until those votes are cast in a few days. Super Tuesday is only the first step in the vote skewing system.  First people vote then the government uses other representation statistics to take the value of some votes down and others up. Step two Electors vote for who ever they want (according to the 12th amendment) so if you want to change the election lobbying the electors seems to be in line with the founders vision. Possible step three House appoints President and Senate appoints VP.

[Adam White]

We actually won't know the electoral margin until those votes are cast in a few days. Super Tuesday is only the first step in the vote skewing system.  First people vote then the government uses other representation statistics to take the value of some votes down and others up. Step two Electors vote for who ever they want (according to the 12th amendment) so if you want to change the election lobbying the electors seems to be in line with the founders vision. Possible step three House appoints President and Senate appoints VP.

They can't vote for whomever they want in some states (like, I believe, CO). Some states have laws about that sort of thing.

[Adam White]

Except those laws have never been tested. The electors are properly a Federal matter, instead of State

A federal judge just ruled that CO electors have to vote for Clinton:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/colorado-faithless-electors-appeal-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-judge-10th-appeals-court-19-december-a7473026.html

I think it's being appealed, of course. Whether states can do this or not hasn't been decided, as far as I know, and I don't believe there is a consensus anyway.

[MusicMan]

The whole "gave Hillary a question beforehand" is utterly pathetic. It's like saying Trump new about the debate questions because they were going to ask about National Security. The "question" alluded to was in regards to the water crisis in Flint Michigan. That would have been, or should have been, included in any serious debate preparation, it would not have been a surprise.

[Adam White]

The whole "gave Hillary a question beforehand" is utterly pathetic. It's like saying Trump new about the debate questions because they were going to ask about National Security. The "question" alluded to was in regards to the water crisis in Flint Michigan. That would have been, or should have been, included in any serious debate preparation, it would not have been a surprise.

Bullshit. She was given an advantage that was not given to her opponent. The scales were tipped in her favour.

She cheated and acted unethically. But what she did wasn't illegal, as she simply cheated in a debate scheduled as part of a party's candidate selection process.

[strider]

Actually, while it was true that Hillary Clinton did get told about a few (the exact number seems to be unknown but from 1 to 3 perhaps) potential debate questions, the exact questions were not given to her and yes, common sense says that the subject matters mentioned would be likely subjects to be asked about.  I also can not find where Hillary Clinton actually asked for the questions and unless you can prove to me that Trump did not get the same heads up from someone on his side of the aisle, it is and will remain a pretty lame argument to say she got any kind of advantage.  Let's face facts here, Trump still has trouble telling the truth about much of anything and he is also known to be as sleasy as anyone so it is not a stretch that he too got prior notice from someone and in fact, you would be hard pressed to get me to belive it is not a common occurrence.

[Adam White]

Actually, while it was true that Hillary Clinton did get told about a few (the exact number seems to be unknown but from 1 to 3 perhaps) potential debate questions, the exact questions were not given to her and yes, common sense says that the subject matters mentioned would be likely subjects to be asked about.  I also can not find where Hillary Clinton actually asked for the questions and unless you can prove to me that Trump did not get the same heads up from someone on his side of the aisle, it is and will remain a pretty lame argument to say she got any kind of advantage.  Let's face facts here, Trump still has trouble telling the truth about much of anything and he is also known to be as sleasy as anyone so it is not a stretch that he too got prior notice from someone and in fact, you would be hard pressed to get me to belive it is not a common occurrence.

These were questions in advance of her debates with Sanders - not Trump.

[MusicMan]

Yes I know.  In all honesty the debates (all of them) proved to be without merit. There was not any "surprise" questions, like "Who is the leader of Isis?" or stuff like that. Stuff you kind of hope the next President would know.

I would have preferred a "current events " test, where the candidates needed to show a more than rudimentary knowledge of recent world events.  Questions like ,

"Name the leaders of the G-8." 

Fill in the unlabeled map of the Middle East.  Or Central America, or South America.

Discuss the differences between Sunni and Shia.

Describe the fundamental science behind the theory of global climate change. 

Explain how a bill becomes a law.

Describe the process of hydraulic fracturing to a layman.

Does that seem fair?  I'd bet $1000 Trump would struggle with those.

He's good at branding and other business related items, and surely knows more about bankruptcy and maybe financing debt,
but I prefer a President who is well versed in items related to governance and policy, not a branding and marketing guru.

That being said, we will see in the near future just how well Trump will do.  He boasted of "knowing more about Isis than the Generals,"
which I personally think is a crock of sh!t, but we'll see.

[Adam White]

That being said, we will see in the near future just how well Trump will do.  He boasted of "knowing more about Isis than the Generals,"
which I personally think is a crock of sh!t, but we'll see.

I think it's not unreasonable to believe that pretty much everything Trump says is total bullshit. I had hoped he'd surround himself with really competent people, but I am losing hope. And if he had an ounce of good sense, he'd stop tweeting and let his PR team take care of that.