Its almost over!

[CaptainJaneway]

Here are a few articles that I found before I signed the petition. With this election who knows maybe some of these electors have a conscience and realizes that Trump is fucked in the head. Especially after the last few days with his picks for his staff.

http://time.com/4560682/faithless-electors/

http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/the-one...e-white-house/

[mjr]

The last time a significant number of electors "flipped" their votes was because someone died. And it wasn't so much of a "flip" as it was a "now we have to vote for someone else, because the person we're supposed to vote for died."

This is what WikiPedia says (complete with sources) about "Faithless" electors:

A faithless elector is one who casts an electoral vote for someone other than the candidate of the party that they pledged to vote for or does not vote for anyone. Twenty-nine states plus the District of Columbia have laws to punish faithless electors. In 1952, the constitutionality of state pledge laws was brought before the Supreme Court in Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214 (1952). The Court ruled in favor of state laws requiring electors to pledge to vote for the winning candidate, as well as removing electors who refuse to pledge. As stated in the ruling, electors are acting as a functionary of the state, not the federal government. Therefore, states have the right to govern electors. The constitutionality of state laws punishing electors for actually casting a faithless vote, rather than refusing to pledge, has never been decided by the Supreme Court. While many only punish a faithless elector after the fact, states like Michigan also specify a faithless elector's vote be voided.[53]

As electoral slates are typically chosen by the political party or the party's presidential nominee, electors usually have high loyalty to the party and its candidate: a faithless elector runs a greater risk of party censure than criminal charges.

Faithless electors have not changed the outcome of any presidential election to date. For example, in 2000 elector Barbara Lett-Simmons of Washington, D.C. chose not to vote, rather than voting for Al Gore as she had pledged to do. This was done as an act of protest against Washington, D.C.'s lack of congressional voting representation.[54] Barbara Lett-Simmons's abstention did not change who won that year's presidential election, as George W. Bush received a majority (271) of the electoral votes.

So it's VERY unlikely to happen.

[Rageaholic]

Take responsibility for your decision. No one made you do it. Could Hillary have been a better candidate? Sure. Was she as awful a candidate as she was painted? God no. Was she a terrible choice next to Donald Fucking Trump? Jesus fucking double plus no.

No one made anyone do anything, but they weren't exactly being persuaded to vote Clinton. (though I ended up voted Clinton, I did have my doubts and even considered third party. The only reason I voted for her was because I despise Donald Trump, but for a lot of people, a crappier candidate on the right isn't enough to persuade them).

Don't take a dump on your country's rug then blame everyone else for not putting a toilet there.

Well when you gotta go, you gotta go...

[Gravekeeper]

Erm.... I'm not American. I don't get to vote in their elections. Unless you meant it as a general "you", in which case, never mind.

I meant the general you.

But the point remains that Clinton was a shitty candidate. Remember: Trump achieved less votes than Romney did in 2012 when he lost against Obama. It's not that he brought out tons of disgruntled people to vote for him - it's that Clinton lost a ton more. Five million less than Obama in 2012, I believe? And 10 million less than Obama in 2008?

Well, the problem with that factoid is that Obama is historically the only other candidate to get more votes than Clinton. Obama was #1. Coming in at #2 isn't exactly a terrible lose.

They are everything that's been wrong in their country for decades - and comments like, "Pokemon GO to the polls!" and, "Tell us how your student loan debts make you feel, in three emojis or less!" also kinda show that she's painfully out of touch with average human beings.

Something she freely acknowledged and said that she, and others like her, needed to work on that. But I mean, her opponent lives in a fucking gold gilded condo at the top of a tower.

Add to that the fact that calling your opponent's supporters a "basket of deplorables" is not just disrespectful, but also fairly stupid. But "Jonathan Pie" already went over that in the video. Still, if the left/liberals/Democrats continue to just insult Trump's supporters, they'll just dig in even more. Let's hope they get smarter over the next four years. On both sides of the trenches.

But again, she was strung up for the slightest misstep while Trump wiped his ass with human decency on a daily basis. There's no real criticism you can level at Clinton that Trump doesn't also possess at 10 times the magnitude.

Which, once more is my problem with all this. Calling for respect or calm or "lets just give Trump a chance" or whatever after you just ran the most divisive, hateful, ignorant, uninformed, racist, sexist, mean spirited, petty and dishonest campaign in the history of America is disingenuous bullshit.

It needs to be called out. Loudly and repeatedly. You can't spent over a year just absolutely shitting on everyone in the country then turn around and claim you're upset because Hillary put you in a basket.

GK, I'll be honest. There are times you make me irate, and this is one of them. As a non-American, its cool that you have no particular affinity, but some of us actually do. Its not like Parliamentary systems prevented Brexit. If anything does, it will be the same separation of powers that's getting exposed in the US.

No, but a parliamentary system might break the two party stranglehold. As it does, by design, ensure representation proportional to people's actual votes. The system as it is now sucks ass. Everyone knows it sucks ass. Everyone has been complaining it sucks ass for decades. Its sucking more and more ass with each passing year.

No one made anyone do anything, but they weren't exactly being persuaded to vote Clinton. (though I ended up voted Clinton, I did have my doubts and even considered third party. The only reason I voted for her was because I despise Donald Trump, but for a lot of people, a crappier candidate on the right isn't enough to persuade them).

But, yet again, in a choice between a plate of dollar store pizza you've had 100 times before and licking the side of a dumpster behind a truck stop in Nevada people went "Eh, I don't feel like pizza tonight. Crack open that dumpster!"

Which is, once more, my problem. Not everyone that voted for Trump is a racist asshole, or a sexist fuck trumpet, a gullible shithead or a KKK grand wizard. But enough people looked at those qualities in Trump, shrugged and went "Eh, not a deal breaker".

And in doing so they condoned, accepted and normalized that behaviour. Regardless of how much they protest otherwise.

[mjr]

Giant Douche & Turd Sandwich...that's what we had.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWb8hqvqqhk

[KabeRinnaul]

It was more Giant Douche and "Ugh, seriously, we've been ordering the same sandwich from the same place every time for like 20 years. There are so many rumors going around about some people getting sick and even dying from them, too. I would literally eat a turd sandwich rather than this, oh my god."

[Gravekeeper]

It was more Giant Douche and "Ugh, seriously, we've been ordering the same sandwich from the same place every time for like 20 years. There are so many rumors going around about some people getting sick and even dying from them, too. I would literally eat a turd sandwich rather than this, oh my god."

Hmm, no, that doesn't quite cover the scope of it. Maybe replace "Giant Douche" with "Bowl full of alarmingly moist medical waste".

[Canarr]

Well, the problem with that factoid is that Obama is historically the only other candidate to get more votes than Clinton. Obama was #1. Coming in at #2 isn't exactly a terrible lose.

Nope. But losing against Trump is.

Something she freely acknowledged and said that she, and others like her, needed to work on that. But I mean, her opponent lives in a fucking gold gilded condo at the top of a tower.

Yes, she said that; and no, people apparently didn't believe her. And why would they? How often have politicians promised that, or something to that effect?

Look, I'm not a fan of Trump. I'm actually fairly worried about what he'll be doing as President. I mean, if you have China reminding you to not abandon work against climate change, that says something...

What I'm saying is: I get why people voted for him. He's not a Messias, not a figure of hope. He's a protest figure, someone who's different. Someone who is not one of the myriad of politicians who make the same promises every year, and never keep them. Yes, Trump is an asshole, who behaves horribly to people. But who exactly does he behave horribly to? Politicians, celebrities? The Elite that the "Deplorables" feel don't care about their welfare. So, why should the "Deplorables" care that their future President is shitty to them?

David Wong from Cracked put it like this:

To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

Apparently, the number of people - men and women, white and POC - that feel ignored, neglected, disregarded by the eslablishment is a lot bigger than Democrats thought. Which kinda means that they've gotten fairly disconnected from the people who used to vote for them.

Hillary went in there with "breaking the glass ceiling" and "putting more women in management positions". How many voters did they think this would bring? How many women are actually in a position where the glass ceiling matters to them? And how many more are worried about paying rent?

A lot of people seem to feel that their political representatives don't really represent them. Obama was supposed to change that, but didn't - couldn't, yes, due to obstructionism - so why would anyone believe that Clinton could do better? Clinton, who doesn't have Obama's trustworthiness?

If you're desperate enough to feel the need to throw a brick through someone's window, then you probably won't care that it's covered in shit.

[XCashier]

What I'm saying is: I get why people voted for him. He's not a Messias, not a figure of hope. He's a protest figure, someone who's different. Someone who is not one of the myriad of politicians who make the same promises every year, and never keep them. Yes, Trump is an asshole, who behaves horribly to people.

So, if they wanted to protest vote, why couldn't they have voted for someone who isn't a racist, misogynistic, Narcissistic asshole?

A lot of people seem to feel that their political representatives don't really represent them. Obama was supposed to change that, but didn't - couldn't, yes, due to obstructionism - so why would anyone believe that Clinton could do better?

Because Clinton isn't a member of the party that did all of the obstructing in the first place?!

[mjr]

So, if they wanted to protest vote, why couldn't they have voted for someone who isn't a racist, misogynistic, Narcissistic asshole?

Because Clinton isn't a member of the party that did all of the obstructing in the first place?!

Both of those can be answered thusly, I believe:

A number of people who could have voted for someone else (even as a "protest" vote) likely voted for Trump because they did not want Hillary Clinton in the White House.

It may not make sense, and it really does appear to be "politics over principles" in some cases (I'm sure), but I think that's what went on.

I didn't vote for Trump or Hillary. But I did vote.

[Canarr]

1. So, if they wanted to protest vote, why couldn't they have voted for someone who isn't a racist, misogynistic, Narcissistic asshole?

2. Because Clinton isn't a member of the party that did all of the obstructing in the first place?!

1. Possibly because the US has a two-party-system, so there's always a clear either-or-choice. Basically, Trump was the only asshole on offer.

Or maybe there's a myriad of other reasons that nobody will ever find out as long as they keep talking about Trump's voters instead of with them.

2. That doesn't matter! Obama was the best case - first black President, looking to make reforms, enact change! It was going to be magical!

Except then it wasn't. Because the US system allows the Republicans to engage in destructive obstruction of everything they don't agree with, then make the Democrats cave by holding the Budget hostage. So, if Obama, the best President, couldn't make it work, what hope did Clinton have? Who has none of Obama's charme, or earnestness, or trust?

The system doesn't work. It's broken. My guess is that Trump's supporters are simply tired of hoping for a good guy to help them, so now they're sending in a bad guy. Someone they hope is going to smash the system into pieces, and build something else from the rubble.

Again: I'm not a Trump supporter. I wouldn't have voted for him. But I believe it's vital for the US to try and understand where those who did vote for him, came from. Why they're angry, or desperate, or whatever.

Because they're your neighbors. And they'll still be there when Trump eventually gets bored with being President and goes somewhere else to open another golf course.

[TheHuckster]

I live in a very blue state, but I know of some people personally who voted for Trump. They each have very different reasons. Note that I don't share these same beliefs.

1.) Some have serious problems with Hillary. They believe she has a lot to hide and the few things that have come out (emails, Benghazi, etc.) are believed to represent the tip of the iceberg in a career full of disingenuous actions whose motivations are nothing but to get her to the top. They don't like Trump, but they feel he is the "lesser of two evils" simply because he hasn't done the things they believe Hillary has done. The argument I hear from this group is something along the lines of, "You know Hillary is going to be a horrible president; with Trump, you don't know how much of what he says is what he means, so I'll take my chances with him." Yes, they actually say that.

2.) Some believe Trump is a man of hyperbole and embellishment. He intentionally makes statements very outrageous because it's what gives him publicity, and they are believers in the "no such thing as bad publicity" concept. They do believe he will be more mellowed out after getting elected, and while he will be tough on illegal immigration and terrorism, they do not believe he would go as far as he said he would, regarding making people register as Muslim or build as extensive a wall. They consider the managers of his campaign to be marketing geniuses that makes Apple's marketing department look like a mom-and-pop local car dealership.

3.) Some believe Trump, being an "outsider," will "drain the swamp." Crooked politics will become a thing of the past, and there will be no more lobbyists, cronyism, or other stuff that has given politics a bad name for the longest time in history. Even now they point to Christie's departure as evidence of this, even though Trump has kept, among others, Newt Gingrich and Giuliani, both career politicians who have had their share of your usual political controversies, and we still have 535 members of congress who would remain unaffected.

4.) He has an R next to his name. No more reason is needed.

5.) This is the saddest group, and I feel awful knowing these people, but some of them are family, so I have no choice, since I don't choose who comes to family gatherings. Some actually support everything Trump has said. They think women should know their place, and be "grabbed by the pussy" if a rich man so desires. They think all Mexican immigrants are rapists and murderers. They think Hillary has intentionally and personally killed opponents and is in cahoots with the government to cover it up. They believe Obama is a covert Muslim and was born in Kenya. They were the people who enthusiastically voted for Trump in the primary elections and have a very distorted view of reality.

[Gravekeeper]

So, if Obama, the best President, couldn't make it work, what hope did Clinton have? Who has none of Obama's charme, or earnestness, or trust?

In fairness, Obama made the mistake of treating the GOP as adults right up to the very end. Long past the point they had proven otherwise. I sincerely doubt Hillary would make that same mistake.

[Crazedclerkthe2nd]

To those ignored, suffering people, Donald Trump is a brick chucked through the window of the elites. "Are you assholes listening now?"

Yeah, what better way to flip a finger to the elites than by electing a guy who lives in a GOLD PLATED PENTHOUSE at the top of a TOWER in the heart of New York City?

That'll show those snobby bastards!

[Canarr]

In fairness, Obama made the mistake of treating the GOP as adults right up to the very end. Long past the point they had proven otherwise. I sincerely doubt Hillary would make that same mistake.

Maybe she would've, maybe not. In any case, she didn't seem convincing to people. Or not enough people.

Yeah, what better way to flip a finger to the elites than by electing a guy who lives in a GOLD PLATED PENTHOUSE at the top of a TOWER in the heart of New York City?

That'll show those snobby bastards!

I'm not saying it makes sense. I'm not saying it's right, or smart. I'm just saying that Clinton is part of the political establishment. She's been for decades, and thus - in the eyes of people who don't feel their politicians do a good job of representing them - she's tainted. Hell, she and her husband have an annual income of 30 million USD between them, most of which consists of "speakers fees" for Bill. And that's not even touching on the Clinton charity fund, or the contributions from Saudi Arabia.

Trump may be a rich bastard, but he's an outsider when it comes to politics. Thus, he can make the claim that he has no obligations to anyone other than his office/the people, that he has no favors outstanding he'll need to repay. He can claim that he will clean up, that he will make things different.

Clinton represents more of the same shit. Trump represents change, a chance of doing things differently. Whether either is true, doesn't matter: for people who feel they've been fucked over by the system for years or decades, who are just desperate enough that they want to believe it's true, Trump is the solution, while Clinton is just more of the same problems.