45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.

[968]

jsf said:

That's the constitutional democracy in action, as has been the case since the inception of the USA. Work to change the constitution if you don't like the outcome. It's not a fixed document, it can be amended, hence the Amendments.

The relevant section of the constitution states the following.

"The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted. The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such Majority, and have an equal Number of Votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately chuse by Ballot one of them for President; and if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President. But in chusing the President, the Votes shall be taken by States, the Representation from each State having one Vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a Member or Members from two thirds of the States, and a Majority of all the States shall be necessary to a Choice. In every Case, after the Choice of the President, the Person having the greatest Number of Votes of the Electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal Votes, the Senate shall chuse from them by Ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: — "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.""

12th Amendment

"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; — the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; — The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. — The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

Tl;dr

Irrelevant. Mainly because I didn't actually criticise the electoral college system.

[anonymous-user]

968 said:

Tl;dr

Irrelevant. Mainly because I didn't actually criticise the electoral college system.

If you don't accept the result of the process, then that is precisely what you are doing.

[xRIEx]

desolate said:

TLandCruiser said:

It's not much different to our general election in that UKIP had more votes than labour but could not secure a seat because they were spread around the country.

which election was this?

TLandCruiser may have meant Lib Dems - in 2015 UKIP got 12.6% (or 12.7%, depending on whether wiki or BBC got it right) of the vote to the Lib Dems' 7.9% (about 56% greater vote share), but only won 1 seat compared to the Lib Dems' 8 seats.

Edit: maths fail, it's 59% or 60% greater, not 56%.

Edited by xRIEx on Saturday 21st January 20:38

[968]

jsf said:

If you don't accept the result of the process, then that is precisely what you are doing.

Where did I say that?

[xRIEx]

968 said:

Tl;dr

Irrelevant. Mainly because I didn't actually criticise the electoral college system.

968 said:

Oh that's convenient. So when Trump spends years pursuing this vendetta, it has no impact on anything, (inevitably so as the whole claim was utter bks) but if people complain that the electoral system conspires to elect the least popular candidate that's different?

If you didn't criticise the electoral college system, does that mean you think that the word "conspires" has positive connotations? Is a conspiracy a good thing? I honestly assumed "the electoral system conspires to elect..." was used to imply you had a negative view of Trump winning according to that system - is that not the case?

[don4l]

xRIEx said:

TLandCruiser may have meant Lib Dems - in 2015 UKIP got 12.6% (or 12.7%, depending on whether wiki or BBC got it right) of the vote to the Lib Dems' 7.9% (about 56% greater vote share), but only won 1 seat compared to the Lib Dems' 8 seats.

You would have thought that the self righteous lefties would have been out on the streets over this injustice.

Edited by don4l on Saturday 21st January 20:42

[xRIEx]

don4l said:

xRIEx said:

TLandCruiser may have meant Lib Dems - in 2015 UKIP got 12.6% (or 12.7%, depending on whether wiki or BBC got it right) of the vote to the Lib Dems' 7.9% (about 56% greater vote share), but only won 1 seat compared to the Lib Dems' 8 seats.

You would have thought that the self righteous lefties woud have been out on the streets over this injustice.

I'd put myself (broadly speaking) in the liberal area and, although I dislike the idea of UKIP gaining power, I do think this is a very worrying electoral mechanism.

[Cobnapint]

He's charming the CIA at the minute with an unbelievable car crash rambling speech.

The guy is a fking lunatic.

[968]

xRIEx said:

If you didn't criticise the electoral college system, does that mean you think that the word "conspires" has positive connotations? Is a conspiracy a good thing? I honestly assumed "the electoral system conspires to elect..." was used to imply you had a negative view of Trump winning according to that system - is that not the case?

No that's not the case. It's a turn of phrase so no need to be sensitive about it.

[scherzkeks]

Stickyfinger said:

968 said:

Safe space? What like, Twitter? where I can cry about being criticised by actors that I've admired previously then claim to be overrated like a teenage girl on her period?

You are a SEXIST and a misogynist.....shame on you, girls have the right to have periods. Please don't assume they all cry.

Heh.

Reminds me of when Unrep was upset about Trumpo's "locker room talk" while in the same thread repeatedly oogling a woman's breasts in photos from a charity event.

I do recall that pointing out his hypocracy triggered him in a major way. Shortly after he was banned from the thread.

[xRIEx]

968 said:

xRIEx said:

If you didn't criticise the electoral college system, does that mean you think that the word "conspires" has positive connotations? Is a conspiracy a good thing? I honestly assumed "the electoral system conspires to elect..." was used to imply you had a negative view of Trump winning according to that system - is that not the case?

No that's not the case. It's a turn of phrase so no need to be sensitive about it.

I wasn't being sensitive about it, I was asking for clarification. Internet discussions tend to flare up due to misunderstandings in different ways people communicate (as I'm sure we're all acutely aware), so I think clearing these up early helps to maintain a more beneficial, cordial discussion. Thank you for the clarification.

[anonymous-user]

Cobnapint said:

He's charming the CIA at the minute with an unbelievable car crash rambling speech.

The guy is a fking lunatic.

Interesting he said he didn't remove the MLK JR bust and replaced it with Churchill, he has both in the Oval Office. The photo taken just showing the Churchill bust had the MLK JR bust not shown because someone was stood in front of it.

He also again mentioned the UK in a positive light and confirmed his meeting with May.

[basherX]

don4l said:

For those of you who missed C4's news last night, here is a link to the superb interview that Jon Snow did with Michael Moore:-

https://www.channel4.com/news/michael-moore-on-tru...

The funny thing is that both Trump supporters and Trump opponents will get equal pleasure from the clip.

Sorry, I know this is from a few pages ago but I'm catching up.

Michael Moore is outraged at someone else being a "malignant narcissist"?

[Leithen]

Cobnapint said:

He's charming the CIA at the minute with an unbelievable car crash rambling speech.

The guy is a fking lunatic.

Looks like it's going to be four years without anything vaguely resembling "nuance".

Rather than trying to read in-between the lines, everyone is going to be try to work out what the hell the lines actually mean!

[don4l]

basherX said:

don4l said:

For those of you who missed C4's news last night, here is a link to the superb interview that Jon Snow did with Michael Moore:-

https://www.channel4.com/news/michael-moore-on-tru...

The funny thing is that both Trump supporters and Trump opponents will get equal pleasure from the clip.

Sorry, I know this is from a few pages ago but I'm catching up.

Michael Moore is outraged at someone else being a "malignant narcissist"?

The hyprocrisy of the left knows no bounds.

[Cobnapint]

Leithen said:

Cobnapint said:

He's charming the CIA at the minute with an unbelievable car crash rambling speech.

The guy is a fking lunatic.

Looks like it's going to be four years without anything vaguely resembling "nuance".

Rather than trying to read in-between the lines, everyone is going to be try to work out what the hell the lines actually mean!

It was like listening to someone on crack.

He referred to the gulf war - 'the US should have kept the oil'.......Do what?!

Now we all like a laugh, but that's the kind of language used by somebody who is unhinged.

[anonymous-user]

Leithen said:

Cobnapint said:

He's charming the CIA at the minute with an unbelievable car crash rambling speech.

The guy is a fking lunatic.

Looks like it's going to be four years without anything vaguely resembling "nuance".

Rather than trying to read in-between the lines, everyone is going to be try to work out what the hell the lines actually mean!

I think if you just listen to him, you see a sense of humour under there that triggers his going off on a tangent. If you remember he isn't a politician, it becomes easier to understand the narrative, amongst the ramblings is a message.

Its almost as though he thinks no one will notice he did a good job unless he points it out, so some insecurity showing through there.

What I take from that visit to the CIA is the middle east is about to see some major American military action against ISIS.

[anonymous-user]

Cobnapint said:

Leithen said:

Cobnapint said:

He's charming the CIA at the minute with an unbelievable car crash rambling speech.

The guy is a fking lunatic.

Looks like it's going to be four years without anything vaguely resembling "nuance".

Rather than trying to read in-between the lines, everyone is going to be try to work out what the hell the lines actually mean!

It was like listening to someone on crack.

He referred to the gulf war - 'the US should have kept the oil'.......Do what?!

Now we all like a laugh, but that's the kind of language used by somebody who is unhinged.

That was rather selective.

What he said was we shouldn't have gone in to Iraq, he was against that intervention. But as they did go in, they left in such a bad way that enabled ISIS to form and gave them the money from the oil to arm.

That was his reference point to keeping control of the oil.

[Leithen]

jsf said:

..so some insecurity showing through there.

I'd say a bucket more than some insecurity. It's remarkable how much self-reference is laced into everything he says.

You'd think he'd be far more comfortable in himself given how much he keeps telling us he's achieved.

[Gandahar]

Cobnapint said:

Leithen said:

Cobnapint said:

He's charming the CIA at the minute with an unbelievable car crash rambling speech.

The guy is a fking lunatic.

Looks like it's going to be four years without anything vaguely resembling "nuance".

Rather than trying to read in-between the lines, everyone is going to be try to work out what the hell the lines actually mean!

It was like listening to someone on crack.

He referred to the gulf war - 'the US should have kept the oil'.......Do what?!

Now we all like a laugh, but that's the kind of language used by somebody who is unhinged.

I'll get back to his speech in a moment, but the more interesting thing is that day after getting into power he is down visiting the CIA. Has any other US president done that?

I get the feeling after burning so many bridges in the last few weeks with the intelligence service the feeling that building bridges with the CIA needs to be done pronto. He's got a new pro Trump person in charge so this is just to try and get the underlings and minions in line and not working against him ( which you would not want to happen would you ... )

The slightly amusing thing is he still does his rambling speech and comes out with salesman talk, from the BBC report

"In the past, "I know that maybe sometimes you didn't get the backing that you wanted", Trump says. And you're going to get so much backing. Maybe you're going to say, please don't give us so much backing."

At least he got down there. It shows that the new team is worried about the disjuncture between part of the US government, which is one you really want on your side. That's probably more important in the long run than demonstrations today.

Unfortunately for President Trump Mr Obama was a very good speaker, perhaps too highbrow, but it does throw Donalds mutterings into highlight. Ronnie and Bush Jnr had slightly the same issue on speeches.

Edited by Gandahar on Saturday 21st January 21:05