yoink

Who gives a shit about Obama any more? Get a new argument - That story's written. You can't shout "BUT OBAMA!..." at every single thing anymore. I love the way that during the election you were stating that you didn't approve of Clinton OR Trump, but now you're man is president elect you're just about the biggest cheerleader he has. He's the golden boy who can do no wrong...

*epic facepalm 1 - You never HAD control of the internet, so you couldn't give it away. 2 - The US stopped taking responsibility for verifying top level domain names - that's all. They are literally not checking a text file.... That's the sum total of their 'control'. 3 - It has absolutely NOTHING to do with either your first amendment rights, the US constitution at all or any sort of speech even.

The Investigatory Powers Bill has basically been approved to be passed into law... http://www.wired.co.uk/article/ip-bill-law-details-passed It's a massively overkill reaction that will force internet companies to keep internet data on everyone for a period of one year. Guilty? Innocent? Doesn't matter - at any point the government will be legally allowed to check up on your internet usage. What you look at, how long you look at it, how you get there etc. It also requires firms to build weaknesses into technology such as phones and software to allow access from the government, again with no targeting. Everyone is a suspect. And that's only 2 measures. There are a load of other sweeping powers that are so poorly written that it's almost carte-blanch for the UK government to legally spy on any of its own citizens. Now I'm sure tthat within 3 or 4 posts someone will dismiss this as 'juts something else from the big-brother UK', but you shouldn't. Despite all the press, in 30 years of living there I never had a problem with the number of CCTV cameras around, or the powers of the police. This one though is ridiculous - and it sets a precedent. If the UK can do it other countries will eventually think they can follow suit - maybe not as blatantly, but to me but this is a serious erosion of personal rights that can only be bad for everyone. (unless you're a UK member of parliament, because then you're protected because you put in an amendment to the bill that separates you from the rest of the UK population and means that any snooping done on you requires approval directly from the Prime Minister. But normal people? Fuck 'em...) http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/snoopers-charter-only-amendment-politicians-have-submitted-to-controversial-bill-is-to-stop-mps-a6948211.html

I don't see the issue. If she's ever going to be a respected first lady then she needs exposure and training of how to communicate with world leaders. Pssst! Trump hasn't married his daughter...yet. Doh! Extremely rich, entitled white people all look the same to me.

And on a personal note, I actually agree with Trumps intention of reducing the number of career politicians involved in the government. But if you remove a load of corrupt but experienced people you do need to fill at least some of those slots back up, and you can only do it with people who have less experience. QED. Fingers crossed that these new guys don't make too many big mistakes and that the change they bring (if any - remember, 'power corrupts') is worth the errors they do make.

I don't see the issue. If she's ever going to be a respected first lady then she needs exposure and training of how to communicate with world leaders. It's no different than having a junior in a company shadow a senior to a meeting - how else are they going to learn? The alternative is that she never gets any training and then gets lambasted when she cocks things up. I have absolutely no issue with the picture... Of course if she was suggesting policy that would be different, but there's no evidence of that.

I'd be fine with that. People need to try to separate the pain or elation of this particular election with the process of voting in general. I haven't complained ONCE about the outcome of this election - it's the system we use so we need to abide by the results. That's not the same discussion as asking if it's the best system for 20, 50 or 100 years from now.

You're right. I completely misread that. Ron, I apologise. That's what I get for posting before my morning coffee.

There's also this gem: Remember the promises that got people like Rush all fired up about tearing down Obamacare root and branch because it was a catastrophe? (Source:http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/trump-obamacare-special-session-230588) Now, not 5 days after winning the election he's already massaging that promise a bit... http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37953528 'Trump: Obamacare key provisions to remain' From my point of view this is a good thing. Not necessarily about Obamacare - it doesn't really affect me but maybe it's an indication that Trump isn't as 'burn the system to the ground' as he came across on the campaign. The message 'It's a catastrophe' and 'repeal and replace' would certainly go down better better than 'actually, there are bits of it we should keep' when your supporters are clamoring for it to be repealed. If you're an ardent Trump / Republican supporter it may be an indication that you're not about to get the new deal that you thought you were...

I'm not sure you know what 'overwhelming' means...

Good job, Maine!!

Yup, it's stupid and pointless. As is the gloating that's going on after the Trump victory. But that's understandable. All any of us can do is play the hand we've been dealt now, whether we like it or not. The country was pretty much 50/50 divided between Clinton and Trump in who should be president, but I would hope that a significant majority would agree that it's a fucked up situation that those are the best representatives our political system could put forward. If not, if half the population genuinely think that Trump and Clinton are the best we can aspire to, then I'm well out of touch... That's what I think needs to change. Representatives and policies that don't pander to the extremes or the media but try to start producing a more aligned population.

I believe it simplified it. The number of electors is the number of Senators (minimum is 2) plus the number of US Representatives (minimum 1) - so the minimum any state can have is 3. The video is correct, if a high-level summary. The video also explains why your argument of candidates focusing on population centers is a fallacy. The top 10 population centers don't even equal 8% of the popular vote. Good job not actually looking at the video but jumping straight to the argument. This system would be wrong no matter who won.

yeah. Just deal with it at this point.

If they've learnt ANYTHING from this debacle it's that they can't do that. I think the lesson for both parties is that they need to pick off the more central voters from their opponents rather than getting more and more polarized and specialist. I suspect the Dems are more likely to try this than the Republicans, but we'll see.

No. It's much worse than you think. If you lived in California and I lived in Wyoming, my 1 vote for president would be worth 4 of yours. This short video explains it well - have a look. I'd be genuinely interested in your response. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k

Fair enough. Let me ask you this in all seriousness - politics aside, would you support changing the voting system to give direct power to the people to pick a president. A system where all votes are equal, regardless of where you live or who you are? I've said before that I would vote for ANY candidate that stood for voting reform, even if I disagreed with all their policies. To me there is a fundamental wrongness with the system we're using where one persons vote is not equal to anothers.

Not at all. Personally, I think all people should be equal. Your vote should count exactly as much as my vote. You're praising a rigged system because it's rigged in your favor. Don't try and pretend otherwise.

How is your Spanish? No bueno But I could be really good at invoicing the government.

What it does show is how unhappy a serious number of Americans are with the status quo. That divide is a fundamental issue that the government is going to need to address over the next several decades, A divided country is good for none of us. The politics of this country has never been set up to be conciliatory or filled with compromise. It is a full-contact sport where there are winners and losers. That's the way it was intended to be and that's the way it should be I'm not talking about politics or how the system works. The system HAS worked but now you need to interpret the results. You can look at it simplisticaly (RED WINS!), or you can look at it in detail (Red wins by 20 votes out of 300 million) - you see how those are different, right? I'm talking about general opinion and the way people work. If literally HALF of a population feels disenfranchised (or more - thanks electoral college!) then that is not good for the country. A certain amount of friction is to be expected, but equally opposed forces are inherently unstable in nature and should be avoided. Unless you'd like us to be a military dictatorship, of course? In that case you're absolutely right. Opposing opinions should be crushed absolutely.

I need to start writing my proposal for work on The Wall. May as well find some good in the situation.

What it does show is how unhappy a serious number of Americans are with the status quo. That divide is a fundamental issue that the government is going to need to address over the next several decades, A divided country is good for none of us.

It's looking like it. Jesus. How bad must a candidate be to lose to a racist, xenophobic, misogynistic conman? America, you should be embarrassed that these are the best your country has to offer.

Why would you delete your original question? Other people might learn from it too. It's also really frustrating.