Betrayal of Trump's anti-Washington, anti-Wall Street base has been swift

[starlord]

My question becomes - would you rather have someone from Washington with political expeirence. Or someone truly from the outside? As an obvious liberal, would you rather Trump kept his promise or rather he puts people in place that have been around ?

I know the obvious answer is you won't be happy with anyone he appoints because you aren't happy with him, but if your choice is ONLY Washington/wall street insider or some random dude he knows , which would you prefer ?

- - - Updated - - -


Even I laughed at this. Thanks

isnt that basically the argument he used against hillary?

[Kapadons]

Clinton never claimed she was going to "drain the swamp" or end put an end to the "establishment".

So it really is "see, Trumps a liar"? I get the sentiment, I just find it petty. Like trying to score proverbial points in a useless battle of moral superiority

[Independent voter]

If Goldman Sachs is known for anything, its for working for The People.

Mnuchin's income is going to take a huge hit if he takes this job, the only thing that can make him take it is idealism.

[Deleted]

1. To ensure all states have at least some level of representation.
2. This is just fearmongering, no, the electoral college won't go out of their way to vote for the candidate that lost the election.

OT: Does this really surprise anybody?

The only reason electoral college was introduced by the founding fathers was that it gave them a way to override the election result.

There's no other reason why the electoral vote system is used. It's also the reason why it's going away in the very near future.

Popular vote is the only vote that matters in an election (in any Western country) unless you are part of the US of A.

[starlord]

So it really is "see, Trumps a liar"? I get the sentiment, I just find it petty. Like trying to score proverbial points in a useless battle of moral superiority

its not really useless when he has a potential re-election on the line.

[alexw]

Yeh, no mods on all day or last night.....

The mods locked lots of anti-Trump threads today.

[Deleted]

Clinton never claimed she was going to "drain the swamp" or end put an end to the "establishment".

It doesn't matter who wants it to do it, it's not going to happen, the congress, senate whatever handles legislation for such things, isn't going to shoot itself in the foot. So Trump, or even Hillary, or even Bernie, can shout all they want, if the congress/senate whatever, says no and they will, there's literally nothing they can do about it, even when being the president.

[Kapadons]

People keep pitching all of these would-you-rathers, but they have to take into account one thing: This is a choice between getting something somewhat acceptable, in which case Trump basically lied about everything, or getting a flaming bag of dog shit, in which case Trump at least kept his promises. Neither of these is a desirable situation, regardless of the president or president-elect in question, and while it may seem like it's just a case of liberals bitter that their candidate lost trying to smear the guy who won, we should all be seriously concerned about the implications of a candidate winning the presidency on a platform built from all or virtually all lies. This is not behavior to be encouraged in future candidates and should be deeply troublesome to anyone who has even the slightest desire for governmental systems built on integrity.

I honestly couldn't answer the question I asked.

I get why people were anti-establishment/corruption. The federal government has a shit rating pretty much on both sides of the aisles. Political favors and self interest seem to be a standard for any politician.

But I also don't want some truly inept person in control of foreign policy or on the Supreme Court. Someone with some form of background in what they are supposed to be over.

In a perfect world, we could have someone with experience that isn't gonna fuck everyone over and line their pockets. But it seems we aren't their yet.

[Deleted]

its not really useless when he has a potential re-election on the line.

I think he's going to be one of the few presidents that won't get a second term. I hope the democratic voters will show up in full force the election after this one, and sending the republican party to the graveyard, where it essentially belongs. Trump voters, they'll believe him blindly, I don't think we should question that anymore.

[alexw]

its not really useless when he has a potential re-election on the line.

Trump isn't going to run for reelection. Its pretty obvious he won't. He ran for president because he has an ego the size of a continent, and loves to be the center of attention. Also he's as competitive as hell and can't stand to lose. He's proved his point now "I can be president if I want to be", and is going to hate the next 4 years of actual drudge work.

[NED funded]

So it really is "see, Trumps a liar"? I get the sentiment, I just find it petty. Like trying to score proverbial points in a useless battle of moral superiority

Holding politicians accountable to the promises they made as a candidate is important. Sure some degree of flexibility is important, but when you backtrack to this degree well....

[satimy]

Meet the new boss, Same as the old boss

[NED funded]

It doesn't matter who wants it to do it, it's not going to happen, the congress, senate whatever handles legislation for such things, isn't going to shoot itself in the foot. So Trump, or even Hillary, or even Bernie, can shout all they want, if the congress/senate whatever, says no and they will, there's literally nothing they can do about it, even when being the president.

Then they are lying to the people.

[satimy]

Not true. Electoral college has always been a pretty contested idea. It makes each vote worth different amounts based on location, which goes counter to the idea of voting for the candidate. It also allows the electoral official to literally ignore the outcome of the vote and vote as they wish (Doesn't happen much at all, but it is possible).

The electoral college prevents New York and California from determining how the rest of the country has to live

[LordWellington]

It's just that business as usual (ZING) republicans for key economic posts is very odd considering the nearly psychotic screams about ''globalist bankers'''

Maybe I should put globalists in double parenthesis, to follow your Calvin and Hobbes grade ''sekret kodes'' ?

Then again, obviously the handlers of Trump campaign think very highly of the intelligence of their supporters, considering that they managed to make them believe that Trump would finally gave the A-word for the extermination of ''globalists'', while his own daughter converted to ''globalism' and his grandkids will be ''globalists'' raised in the ''globalist'' faith, not to mention that the competent side of the campaign was handled by the son in law, a devout ''globalist'' (1) That point alone should prove you that Trumpists believe everything

(1)That's how subtle sounds people with pictures of Nazi officers as avatar looks when they use ''globalists''

[Wyrt]

The electoral college prevents New York and California from determining how the rest of the country has to live

Bullshit. That's not 50% of the population.

[LordWellington]

The electoral college prevents New York and California from determining how the rest of the country has to live

You mean that it's revolting that the two largest states have the most influence ? States that pull quite their weight in the economy.

[Flatspriest]

Popular vote means jack shit. Why we even vote at all when it means nothing is still stupid

Each state votes to tell your states electoral college reps how you want them to vote for the position of president. That way, states like California and New York do not have all the voting power since they hold most of the people, and smaller states get some say as well.

[alexkeren]

Not true. Electoral college has always been a pretty contested idea. It makes each vote worth different amounts based on location, which goes counter to the idea of voting for the candidate. It also allows the electoral official to literally ignore the outcome of the vote and vote as they wish (Doesn't happen much at all, but it is possible).

Actually in 36 or 39 states they are required by law to cast their votes for the candidate with the most votes. And then it varies a lot after that.

[Deleted]

I honestly couldn't answer the question I asked.

I get why people were anti-establishment/corruption. The federal government has a shit rating pretty much on both sides of the aisles. Political favors and self interest seem to be a standard for any politician.

But I also don't want some truly inept person in control of foreign policy or on the Supreme Court. Someone with some form of background in what they are supposed to be over.

In a perfect world, we could have someone with experience that isn't gonna fuck everyone over and line their pockets. But it seems we aren't their yet.

Political favors and self interest has always and will always be in politics. That's not the problem in the USA right now. In my country even when they only think about themselves, and never agree, they always manage to do the best they can for the citizens. They also know, that in our country if any kind of party sabotages any potential good laws or deals for it's citizens, we generally punish them quite harshly the next election and in a specific example, we sent a party from 31% to 14% in just 4 years and it's been 12 years now and they still haven't gone above 17%.