He was elected cos there are, unfortunately a lot of very easily led, uneducated people who fell for a lot of lies and hype. He was elected cos the Ruskies meddled in the election at a critical time, thus making people mistrust the opposition. He was elected cos America has a totally off the wall strange electoral system whereby even though his opposition won over a million more votes HE still got elected...
Tee hee yes of course! We definitely agree - the man is despicable! I just had a message from someone who said they should stay positive re Trump... Now I am normally a very positive person, but would I be positive in the face of an utter loony as Prez? No way - everyone needs to have their wits about them and their guard up to protect themselves as much as possible.
The electoral college did what it was designed to do and prevent densely populated states dictate to the rest of us who leads the nation. Praise God they had this foresight, otherwise the rest of us are effectively disenfranchised by LA, Chicago, and NYC.
@TE -- Do you also object to the fact that only about 12 states in any Presidential election are contested, because the remainder are almost unflippably GOP/Demo?
If the EC result was Trump winning because he won the 40 least-populous states by a 40-0 popular vote and lost the remaining states 70,000,000 - 0, would you still support the result?
Or is your love of anti-democratic anachronisms solely based upon TEH STOOPID EBIL LIBRUHLZ losing?....;-D..
Of course we won't go into extreme examples... I support the system as designed. No changes. The last piece is your opinion in my regard. I've accepted more than one election in which I thought the victor was a mistake, that's the way it works.
@TalanE -- What's so sacred about "the system as designed"? Why should only Presidential elections be based upon geography? How about state governors/legistlators being elected by geography (e.g. every county in the state has one electoral vote, or every subdistrict in a legislator's jurisdiction have one electoral vote)?
Note: Accepting an election where you thought the "wrong" candidate won for IDEOLOGICAL reasons, rather than structural reasons is beside the point.
Sharonna, Fork wrote that the past 4 elections stirred similar perspectives, which means that in at least 2 of them, the electee was someone you espoused and/or supported. I notice that you didn't address that at all, yet you often purport that others should be just as indignant as you are in your fervent opposition to Trump. Just noticing, that's all. ~
She's just upset. Don't hold it against her. Took me awhile after the 2008 and 2012 elections to calm my britches too. lol When you invest so much into a candidate (for me it was Ron Paul) and you feel as though they didn't simply lose, but were robbed of even a chance to succeed, it's tough to see a future where you may once again have faith in the system that allowed such a thing to happen.
Why would name-calling be appropriate, Sharonna, even if you only intimate to it or do so in jest? If and when someone referred to Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama with disparaging ephitats, you took exception. You refer to Trump as a pig and other such names, so I wonder if that's the utmost in maturity and civility with which you level your arguments. Hmmmm.
Sunshine 