Donald Trump

[Wickerman]

Just wanted to add, more seriously, that we the American people need to be able to trust our President to tell us the truth. We don't need a President who doesn't read, doesn't understand the workings of the government, can' t give a coherent speech, distrusts the mainstream media to the extent that he undermines it by calling the results of journalistic research "fake news", and is (either consciously or unconsciously) pushing a white-supremacist agenda upon our country.

What is more worrying, the fact someone like that is in the position that he is or, the fact nearly half of America agree with him, and what he represents?

[Wickerman]

I voted for the man with great enthusiasm, and so far, it seems to me to have been an excellent decision.

And that, to me, is very troubling.

[Hercule Poirot]

"They will eventually wake up ..." Hercule Poirot

Yes, really?

Don't wake up too late, mate!!!!!

You probably have noticed I didn't fix any deadline. Some may suffer from the Rip Van Winkle syndrome. LOL

Hercule Poirot

[jason_c]

Trump seemingly lets his audience believe that Sewden was attacked by terrorists!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/19/w...-a-nation.html

Thank you for at least putting the word seemingly in your description of Trump's comments. Strictly speaking Trump said no such thing as an attack happened, though some media reports would assume otherwise. Trump made a bizarre-ish statement that could have indicated Sweden was attacked, but he also indicated more strongly it was a general problem with immigrants in Sweden he was talking about.

I think this prediction made a couple of hours before Trump's speech is appropriate. Change rally attendance with problems in Sweden.

https://twitter.com/ScottAdamsSays/s...98512531222529

In my opinion this is all a deliberate ploy by Trump. Have a look at Trump's tweet the morning of Brexit. At face value it's as ignorant as can be; read it another way and there is not a word of his tweet that is wrong. I can't find the original link but the tweet is in the link below. His Brexit tweet is a thing of beauty.

http://www.spin1038.com/entertainmen...eet-back-fires

[Mayerling]

Possible model (European style) for "The Donald"

In many lands there have been famous or infamous "leaders" who have questionable habits. Sometimes the habits seem odd today to most of us. FDR was superstitious, and Mackenzie King consulted (through mediums) his mother, FDR (after his death), and even his pet dog for political advice. Emperor Ferdinand of Austria (who was replaced by Franz Josef in 1848) reputedly only said one sensible, or quasi-sensible statement in the eighteen years of his reign: "I am Emperor and I want my noodles!" [I did not make that one up folks!!]

Given the aroused feelings of the 2016 Presidential election results with Hillary winning a large majority of the popular vote but losing substantial majority in the "Red States" so that the Donald won their electoral votes (and the election), and questions by many of his mental condition, I have considered a very similar situation in French history that one can think about. In 1920, Premier Georges "the "Tiger"" Clemenceau, probably the pre-eminent figure of the politics of the "Third Republic", and one of the "Big Four" at the Versailles Conference of 1919, decided to cap his career by running for the French Presidency. In the realities of French politics in the Third Republic, the Prime Ministers really pushed the policy making of the government, but the Presidents were in for more stability (their terms not depending on keeping political majorities going to back their governments in the French Chamber of Deputies). It would be a way of recognizing Clemenceau's abilities and achievements (including serving longer as Prime Minister (two terms of over two years each - in the Third Republic that was an achievement) by giving him a graceful political end of the road.

Unfortunately, due to changes in elections for the President, Clemenceau lost the initial round to a wealthy politician named Paul Deschenel. Clemenceau could have gone to the necessary second round (had he wanted to) but he decided against it because it would mean he'd win probably in a squeaker election, and his ego felt he had to win big. So Deschenel became the new President, and Clemenceau soon retired from active politics.

Unfortunately Deschenel's behavior was, to be polite, peculiar. He received the ambassador from Great Britain wearing all his medals and award, but no clothing. He was found wandering in his pajamas at night after falling out of a window - by a French peasant. Finally, he left a government meeting, and walked, fully clothed into a nearby lake. Deschenel served roughly seven months in office, and then was bundled off to an asylum where he died in 1922.

I don't think the Donald might do what Deschenel did (check him out on Wikipedia) but you never can tell.

Jeff

[GUT]

Strictly speaking, the popular vote went to Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Trump won the Electoral College vote, presumably because he received enough votes in states with large numbers of electoral votes to win it.

Also, as often happens, only about fifty percent of eligible American voters actually voted.

I know the popular vote went to Hilary, but "The People" elected Donald.

[Pcdunn]

New York Times Opinion pierce by their editorial board:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/17/opinion/i-alone-can-fix-it-president-trump-white-house-apprentice.html?_r=0

[Pcdunn]

Thank you for at least putting the word seemingly in your description of Trump's comments. Strictly speaking Trump said no such thing as an attack happened, though some media reports would assume otherwise. Trump made a bizarre-ish statement that could have indicated Sweden was attacked, but he also indicated more strongly it was a general problem with immigrants in Sweden he was talking about.

It's because of the way he speaks and thinks so quickly. If he had merely slowed down enough and had said "Last night, I saw a report about Sweden's immigration problems..." before going on to talk about all the trouble they are supposedly having over there (denied by Swedish authorities), he wouldn't have caused confusion and we would have been spared numerous Tweets.

[Pcdunn]

Too true, they did ...

I know the popular vote went to Hilary, but "The People" elected Donald.

well, some of them, anyway.

[GUT]

well, some of them, anyway.

No, actually all of them did, because that's how democracy works.

[John G]

Actually, Donald Trump was elected by just 304 Electoral College electors! Under the Constitution, the people vote for electors, not for a specific candidate.

In fact, even that's not technically correct, because it is a matter for state legislators to determine how the electors are chosen: see the U.S. Constitution, Article 2, Section 1 and the Twelfth Amendment.

[Pcdunn]

No, actually all of them did, because that's how democracy works.

Do you have an Electoral College system of voting in Australia, or go with the majority vote? just wondering...

We think we're a democracy, but we're actually a "constitutional federal republic" (per Wikipedia). Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course!

[GUT]

Do you have an Electoral College system of voting in Australia, or go with the majority vote? just wondering...

We think we're a democracy, but we're actually a "constitutional federal republic" (per Wikipedia). Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course!

We actually done elect our PM. EACH electorate elects a member. The party with the most members forms govt and the leader of that party is the PM. SO in the last few years we have had a number of occasions where after an election one person was PM, the party thought they weren't doing a good job so replaced them with someone else.

2007 Labor wins Election and Rudd becomes PM
2010 Labor party replaces Rudd with Gillard
2013 Labor party replaces Gillard with Rudd
2013 Liberals win election and Abbot becomes PM
2015 Liberals replace Abbot with Turnbull

[sdreid]

Correct me if I'm wrong but in Australia and Britain and so on the leader is voted in buy the party who wins the most seats, not the party who wins the most votes, so, practically speaking, their system as essentially the same as an Electoral College. France, for example, would be a country where the popular vote elects the leader. If the U.S. had a system identical to the primary aforementioned, Paul Ryan, not Hillary Clinton, would be Prime Minister and the Democrats lose again.

[John G]

The United Kingdom has a good system. Thus, in 1979 the Labour Party were defeated in the General Election, receiving only 36.9% of the vote: their worse performance, in respect of share of the vote, since 1935. However, incredibly,in 2005 they did even worse, receiving just 35.2% of the vote-except on this occasion that was good enough to win the election with an overall majority of 64 seats!

Oh, and our second chamber is called the House of Lords, which is unelected, unaccountable, unrepresentative, and has hardly any powers! Oh, and Prime Ministers can create as many new peers as they like, by simply asking the monarch to create more life peers!