Online Pranksters Mock Trump's $149 Christmas Ornament, Rename Trump Tower on Google Maps (yahoo.com) 524
An anonymous reader quotes a Digital Trends story about a suspicious malfunction on Google Maps:
At some point yesterday, Donald Trump's Fifth Avenue home was given a rather unceremonious rechristening, and a search for "Trump Tower" revealed a pin for "Dump Tower" instead. It was rather tricky to find for some, and required zooming in on the building itself at just the right angle (which is perhaps how the culprit got away with the stunt in the first place). At a separate angle, someone else (or perhaps the same person) transliterated the skyscraper's name in Russian Cyrillic, perhaps meant to be a jab at Trump's alleged ties to President Vladimir Putin and company... While the team [at Google Maps] managed to put out this first fire, another quickly arose to take its place (as is often the case on the internet), and later in the day on Saturday, Trump International Hotel and Tower in Columbus Circle was renamed Dump International Hotel and Tower.
Meanwhile, another anonymous reader writes:
Earlier this week Donald Trump emailed his supporters selling a $149 collectible "Make America Great Again" Christmas ornament finished with 14k gold, to raise money for both his campaign and the Republican party. But Yahoo News reports that it's now getting some suspicious negative (and politically-charged) reviews on its page on Amazon. ("One Star. "It tried to put my nativity figures into an internment camp.") And another reviewer even wrote a satirical story about how their family decided on the ornament for the tree. "During our family meeting we overwhelmingly chose the other ornament but somehow we still ended up with this one. We're not sure what happened."
oh boy (Score:2)
... on the constant mockery, this will be Dubya all over again, won't it?
Re: (Score:2)
... on the constant mockery, this will be Dubya all over again, won't it?
Nope. Compared to Dubya, this time around is gonna be YUUUUUUUUGGGEE!
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Obama collect all the '93 stations wagons in the Cash For Clunkers deal?
It was obscured by the smoke from the burning Ford Pinto, which has been rear-ended earlier.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:oh boy (Score:5, Insightful)
Compared to Trump, George W Bush was a regular Pericles.
You're going to see mockery on a level never before seen in human history. And the Orange Daddy earned every bit of it.
Re: (Score:3)
After losing an election following six months of sneering, elitist, classist "mockery," clearly the answer is to... double down.
Re:oh boy (Score:4, Insightful)
And the Orange Daddy earned every bit of it.
Why? Seriously, how is he even a patch on life long politicians who have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people around the world like Bush and Hillary?
People that have added massive debt to the U.S. that has our kids names on the bills and forced crap like ObamaCare on us. Oh, he MIGHT be as bad at some point? Perhaps, but he hasn't done anything yet.
The hatred is astounding.
Re: (Score:3)
And the Orange Daddy earned every bit of it.
Why? Seriously, how is he even a patch on life long politicians who have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people around the world like Bush and Hillary?
People that have added massive debt to the U.S. that has our kids names on the bills and forced crap like ObamaCare on us. Oh, he MIGHT be as bad at some point? Perhaps, but he hasn't done anything yet.
The hatred is astounding.
Oh come on. Your post is ample evidence that the previous president hardly escaped astounding hate. There might be something in there about how the left and right cope with not having the presidency differently, but in practice, neither side lets the other side take power without bitching and whining for the entire four years. We just had eight years of Republican bitching and now we will have at least four of Democrat bitching.
Re:oh boy (Score:4, Interesting)
Trump belongs to the most protected class of all: millionaires.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What complaint do you have against Jeff Beck [jeffbeck.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
I was gonna leave that one alone, but I'm glad someone caught it.
Re: (Score:2)
overwhelmingly (Score:2)
Check that definition.
Pajama Boys (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly he grabbed you by your epic sense of humor.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Valid review (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Valid review (Score:4, Insightful)
One of the reviews was very insightful in that it pointed out that this $149 ornament was MADE IN CHINA. Trump supporters are suckers. He doesn't give a flying fuck about you. Neither does Hillary, but she isn't selling $149 ornaments. What a joke.
No, she's selling $353,400 dinners:
http://www.politico.com/story/... [politico.com]
Everything that the left gets to riled up about Trump doing pales in comparison to similar actions on the other side.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right. Hillary sells $353,400 dinners to Wall street bankers who can afford it, while Trump sells Chinese trinkets to his ignorant American consumers.
Hillary takes money from the rich... Trump takes money from the poor...
It's going to be a long 4 years watching some people who aren't rich figure out how bad they've got it.
I actually think Hilary does care (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, America just pissed that all away for good 'ole fashion apathy. Trump got the Republican base out just like Rhomey did. Clinton couldn't get the Blacks and Latinos out. She couldn't get them excited with vague promises... Meanwhile Trump promised them the world. Lies, all lies of course. But it _felt_ good.
Sad thing is those Blacks and Latinos are really going to regret staying home. Trump's cabinet isn't going to do them any favors, and somebody's got to fill all those private prisons...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I actually think Hilary does care (Score:5, Informative)
GOP votes by blacks were up 8%, and by hispanics were up 9%. They both turned out more for Trump than they did for Romney or McCain.
It's true that Trump did better than Romney did in 2012 with both of those groups. But your numbers are way off. [nbcnews.com]
Black vote for Romney: 6%
Black vote for Trump: 8%
Latino vote for Romney: 27%
Latino vote for Trump: 29%
So, Trump added 2% to each group, not 8% and 9% respectively. And that 2% is likely within the margin of error of the exit polls.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I bet you're a hoot at parties.
Re: Childish, unprofessional, pathetic. Creative? (Score:2)
Seems to me that the owner of said trademark is doing a fine job of applying tarnish to it, every time he tweets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing you didn't do that well in your torts class. We aren't talking defamation, we're at least potentially talking about trademark tarnishment.
There of course has never been any case like this one would be -- a trademark so intimately tied to a personality who is also a public political figure. My guess is what *should* happen is First Amendment should beat trademark law, in that the intent was political rather than commercial.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
First you have to prove that his trademark wasn't already tarnished. Settling a fraud lawsuit for $25,000,000.00 sort of puts a little patina on it. How do you prove that having "Dump Towers" on Google maps for a few minutes is what did the damage and not him talking about grabbing women's pussies?
Before this Google maps prank, you already had bookings at T
Re: (Score:3)
He threatens lawsuits, but as expected, he doesn't follow through. Trump will never sue anyone for libel or releasing or reporting on a private conversation, because he worries about what would be learned in the discovery phase. This is a guy who was comfortable with his teenaged daughter being called a "piece of ass". He's a urinal cake.
https://variety.com/2016/tv/ne... [variety.com]
Re: (Score:2)
talking about trademark tarnishment.
How much will daddy have to pay Ivanka for the damage that he did to her brand?
Good to see mocking the President back in fashion (Score:3, Insightful)
After eight years of it being racist, mocking the President as well as other dissent is patriotic once again. That alone made voting for Trump worth it...
And to think, it almost became sexist instead!..
Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi (Score:4, Insightful)
Voting for a racist was a great way to make your point.
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly, I must be one of those self-hating, heterosexual white males.
Re: (Score:3)
Your caps lock got stuck.
Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's just say the whole Birther thing is a bit of a tell, then the not renting to black folks in NYC is kind of a give-away as well. [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi (Score:5, Insightful)
After eight years of it being racist, mocking the President as well as other dissent is patriotic once again. That alone made voting for Trump worth it...
And to think, it almost became sexist instead!..
Mocking Obama was always fine.
Mocking Obama in a transparently racist manner was racist. Just like mocking Hillary with obviously sexist insults was sexist.
Just because it's possible to mock Obama or Hillary without being racist or sexist doesn't mean that any offensive thing you say magically becomes not racist or sexist.
Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it not racist to mock Trump on his hair, his skin color, his small hands?
Because "bad spray tan" and "ridiculous hair extensions" is not a race.
And the "small hands" thing is generally just needling him since he's bizarrely insecure about the size of his hands.
Well I do care. I don't care for Trump, but I do care that apparently it is okay to be racist against white people, but everything a white person says can be considered racism.
It's not OK to be racist against white people.
Thankfully it's also relatively rare (at least compared to racism against non-whites).
Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know if you were alive these last 8 years, but anyone who mocked or belittled the President was immediately shouted down as racist. With Trump in office, it will become OK to criticize the President again, which is a huge improvement.
Perhaps you were just saying racist things? I am a progressive and I have conservative friends and we mocked President Obama all the time, but we mocked some of his policies, we never attacked his children (unlike some people on the right) nor his wife, his race, culture or religion. Perhaps you need to take a hard long look in the mirror (you do not need to tell us the results) and ask yourself if you are really being honest with yourself.
Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know if you were alive these last 8 years, but anyone who mocked or belittled the President was immediately shouted down as racist.
I disagree [hyperlogos.org]. I shared that image on social media, sadly it failed to take, probably because I didn't add any snappy text caption. I thought the bottles did the job, but I guess not. I got zero accusations of racism. Absolutely zero, and I have some pretty PC types in my feed. I come from Santa Cruz, see? Only the racism was necessarily called racism.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sure we can get the Republicans to purge the people who say mean things right after the Democrats purge their cop killers, their terrorists and sympathizers, and the KKK.
The KKK voted for Trump, so it's the reps who are going to have to purge them. The vast majority of terrorist attacks on American soil have been by white conservatives, so that's the republicans again. And the democrats will purge the cop killers just as soon as the republicans purge the killer cops. It's the safest time in history to be a cop in America, but they're killing more and more citizens every year. It's not a war on cops. It's a war by cops.
Stiggint (Score:2)
Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi (Score:4, Informative)
Ah, the sweet display of irrational fear. Civics question: Which branch of government passes laws?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The Judicial Branch? [youtube.com]
Re: Good to see mocking the President back in fash (Score:3)
It's cause Obama isn't shit his pants stupid
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Good to see mocking the President back in fashi (Score:4, Informative)
I wish Obama WAS the guy Republicans kept saying he was... that guy would use his constitutional right to appoint Garland in the recess period and give the senate a last major fuck you.
The actual Obama is too damn nice to you idiots.
Re: (Score:2)
Rise by hacking, fall by hacking. Suckit Rump!
What's the objection to a recount? (Score:5, Insightful)
Hillary lost. Get over it.
If you're confident of that (as I am, actually), then you have nothing to fear from a recount, right? There's nothing wrong with double-checking tight races.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What's the objection to a recount? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you're confident of that (as I am, actually), then you have nothing to fear from a recount, right? There's nothing wrong with double-checking all tight races and not a select few.
Fixed that for you. Unless you fear the outcome.
All tight races should be recounted, plus a random sample of the rest. This should be standard procedure. Plus we should also have independent re-checking of the voter registration rolls and processes. Basically, we should apply academic rigor to the election process. It's too expensive to do that universally, sure, but it could be done randomly in the normal case, and it's probably worth expending a little more effort and money on tight races.
Re:What's the objection to a recount? (Score:4, Insightful)
It wasn't that tight, Hilary got 2 million more votes than Trump. That's why he is making the claims about millions of illegal votes on Twitter now, he is worried that the closer people look and the more they demand electoral college reform the less legitimate his administration will look.
The national popular vote was tight (Hillary's win margin was just over 1%), but that's irrelevant because that's not how the president is elected. Some key state races, however, were very close. In Wisconsin Trump's margin was 0.9%. In Michigan it appears that he won by less than 0.3%. Further, there were some irregularities in Wisconsin's results that argue for closer scrutiny. The recounting is unlikely to change the results, but it may reveal problems in the voting systems that can be fixed. As I've argued elsewhere in this thread, we should recount all close results as a matter of course, and randomly select other locations to recount as well, as a sort of hygiene for our democracy.
Actually, what we should *really* do is use verifiable voting processes. When the discussion of voting machines began 20+ years ago, the election integrity problem caught the attention of cryptographers and other security researchers, and their work since then has produced some dramatically better systems by applying ideas from modern cryptography and information theory. They make election integrity mathematically provable (within certain fairly rigorous assumptions; the way cryptographers always work). Early designs were ridiculously impractical, but they improved and the best systems are extremely practical. See Chaum's Scantegrity [wikipedia.org] system, for example.
But the country insists on ignoring these systems. Oddly enough, every time this topic comes up on /., a nominally nerd-oriented side where I'd expect people to be fascinated by them, I post about them... and nearly always get ignored.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There's nothing about the last election that should be 'gotten over'. Everything that's wrong with modern politics and America happened there. I would have said that either way regardless of who won the presidential election.
Re: (Score:3)
The thing is, whenever anyone criticizes trump or even questions whether he has conflicts of interest with his businesses the standard reply has become "B-b-b-b-b-but Hillary!".
We know Clinton lost the election. Get over it!
If you look anywhere online the standard response is "Hillary lost, get over it." Hey, we weren't even talking about her. Why do trump supporters keep bringing her up?
Re:Crybabies (Score:4, Insightful)
He did warn you. And you called him a "Pants on Fire" [politifact.com] liar for it. Suck it up, cupcakes...
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, now even Trump agrees the election was rigged and is off by million of votes. So obviously it needs to be nullified and repeated.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Except, he thinks, he would've won even more — which is not, what you believe at all.
Sorry, there are no Constitutional provisions for that.
Re: (Score:2)
Except, he thinks, he would've won even more.
Well, that's nice for him, unfortunately now that we have his word for it, that it was rigged, we clearly can't be sure without a do-over.
Sorry, there are no Constitutional provisions for that.
Rules are for losers. But not a man like Trump.
Re: (Score:3)
Well he didn't accept the voting results. In his own words millions of illegal votes were cast. [twitter.com]
So I am right there with him. This is very upsetting. We need a do over. I suggest Obama declares a state of emergency until we can figure this out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think people like you get it. If the election were repeated Trump's win would be monumental.
C'mon, it'll be fun!
And this way the rest of the world doesn't have to mull over the uncertainty if Trump was just an electoral accident, or if he actually reflects a batshit crazy electorate.
I am all for clarity.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Crybabies (Score:4, Insightful)
If there are that many illegal immigrants voting, shouldn't we have a nationwide recount to weed them out?
(For the record, I don't think there are that many illegal immigrants voting and I'm not really in favor of the recount. If Jill Stein can fund it with donations, fine, but otherwise I don't think things were close enough. As much as I hate Trump, I've accepted that he's going to be President and I'm moving forward to help mitigate the damage I think he'll do. I just think that the argument that "we shouldn't have a recount" doesn't jive with the "millions voted illegally so Trump really won the popular vote" story - which has no actual evidence backing it.)
Re:Crybabies (Score:4, Funny)
If there are that many illegal immigrants voting, shouldn't we have a nationwide recount to weed them out?
That's unrealistic. The only people who work landscaping these days are Latinos. Why would they weed out their own votes?
Re: (Score:2)
No actual evidence backing it... sounds like GWII to me.
Re: (Score:3)
You gotta admit they are consistent. Before the election they said it was going to be rigged. Now that it's over they are still saying it was rigged - even though their guy won !
Re: (Score:3)
It's acceptable anywhere.
What you are whining about is putting people out. The problem is that EVERYONE is put out by getting a proper ID. It's just that most of us already do it for our JOBS. So using it for voting is redundant.
While the clear intent of voter ID laws is clearly racist voter suppression, it really only discourages the "can't be bothered" crowd. The answer is not to whine about how things are unfair but to tell people to get off their lazy asses.
Re: Crybabies (Score:3)
If you can prove your identity and residential address well enough to get a driver's license (the exact criteria vary by state), and you check the box on that paperwork certifying that you are a citizen and you wish to be registered to vote, you will be registered to vote.
The "Motor Voter Act" requires all states to do that, and to have a similar checkbox for many applications for public assistance (food stamps, Medicaid, housing, etc.).
The Supreme Court ruled that states cannot require evidence of citizens
Re:Crybabies (Score:5, Informative)
Only if you count illegals. We have no idea what the vote count would be if you didn't count illegitimate votes in California, which is where her lead is coming from.
So not only do you think there were millions of illegal voters, but you think these millions of people are in such an effective air-tight conspiracy that not one of them is willing to spill the beans. And they performed this conspiracy, which risked jail time and/or deportation for every person involved, to run up the score in a state in which Clinton would have won anyway.
That is literally an insane idea.
The simply reality is that the US doesn't bother trying to account for voter fraud because the Electoral College makes it mostly pointless.
Which is why GOP politicians go on massive hunts looking for voter fraud after every election, and never comes up with anything but a small handful of people who were just confused.
Re:Crybabies (Score:5, Interesting)
He's just copying Trump's tweet from tonight. Yes, Trump actually believes this. It's from a conspiracy nut job blog who makes shit up.
He's trying to invalidate our system of government. Blinding people with bullshit.
Sadly, it works. At least enough to get to president-elect.
But he hasn't passed the EC yet, and they most definitely are watching him.
Re:Crybabies (Score:5, Insightful)
And Trump's trying the old 'stir shit up redirect' because of the NYT coming out with comprehensive article describing Trump's world wide conflicts of interest.
http://boingboing.net/2016/11/... [boingboing.net]
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Guess what?
Federal bribery does!!
Business deals for trade deals is ... wait for it ... bribery!
Re: (Score:2)
Do your calling for the arrest of Hilary Clinton then [washingtonpost.com].
Of course not. Laws don't apply to the left.
There is nothing in that Washington Post article about any law broken by Hillary Clinton or the Clinton foundation.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
LOL. You know Trump's source for saying this was a conspiracy nut job blog that just made shit up, right?
And that the vast majority of voter fraud was GOP led in NC, IN, WI. Documented even.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting definition of lost, with over 2M more popular votes than Buzz had. Well, he warned us the election was rigged.
Only if you count illegals.
Yes, that is Trump's latest tweeted claim, that he would have won the popular vote if millions of illegals hadn't voted.
And where is his evidence for that? Oh wait, here we go. [this-page-...-blank.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes I do, and yes they vote. I don't blame him for trying to escape mexico , but illegals shouldn't be voting.
Re: (Score:2)
You can tell how insecure the alt right really are when even victory can't prevent them from casting conspiracy theories.
Dont worry little delicate snowflake, the Electoral College will elect Trump.
Re:Crybabies (Score:5, Insightful)
The Russian Jews sent my still living uncle to a gulag back before WW2....
That's the strangest spelling for 'communist'[*] I've ever seen.
...we don't hate the jews, we just wish stupid people like you learned a bit more about history.
Why, because it would save you the trouble of learning actual history?
------------
[*] Oh, OK, if I must: YES, there were Jews among the party apparatchiks at a couple of points in the Leninist/Stalinist period. They were trusted to varying degrees, but were subject to purges, too, depending on a number of factors, not the least of which was endemic anti-semitism among the Russian populace in general. But yes, some of them actually prospered under Stalin when millions of others were dying. This was not typically because of their Jewishness, but because they had other survival skills, some of which were less than admirable, this being Stalin's Russia and all. The Baltic states suffered terribly under the Soviets, but not because of The Jews.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. It was the communist party. They stole from everyone, including the Jews. Jews had NOTHING to do with it. Your grandparents are just raging bigots.
Re:Crybabies (Score:5, Insightful)
Never Happens
http://denver.cbslocal.com/2016/09/22/cbs4-investigation-finds-dead-voters-casting-ballots-in-colorado/
That's clearly a right-wing, biased publication, no?
Broerman said after their deaths, the Sosas remained on active voter rolls and mail ballots were still sent to their home because they did not meet the criteria to have their names deleted from eligible voter rolls.
Notice how mail-in ballots, the one voting method where voter fraud is actually very easy to commit, is never a target of GOP efforts to combat voter fraud?
I wonder why? [s-nbcnews.com]
Re:Crybabies (Score:4, Interesting)
My wife tried to vote absentee from Canada, her last residence was in NC. She never received a ballot or any other follow-up.
Re: (Score:3)
Civil war veterans in NC
http://thefederalist.com/2016/... [thefederalist.com]
There's plenty more, how much over the reports nobody knows because the Democrats spent decades making it impossible to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet many more than 4 votes probably stolen by the other side, no? We know, your side is pure and angelic, never cheating, never stooping low, and the other side is the definition of evil, and so cunning they can corrupt the system without it ever being detected.
Politics is easy if you can just divide it all up into good versus evil. No need to think about complex issues or learn how to get along with friends and family with differing viewpoints.
Re:Crybabies (Score:4, Informative)
No, they mean 2M [nbcnews.com].
Re: Crybabies (Score:4, Informative)
Strictly speaking the rules are that the Electoral College picks the President, and the Constitution gives very few rules as to how they do that. Now I think the EC picking someone other than Trump would be an even worse disaster than picking Trump, but let's be clear as to what the rules actually are. And let's also be clear that Trump's vast international business network poses a potential Constitutional crisis if he doesn't divest himself of it soon.
Re: Crybabies (Score:5, Insightful)
Since when has anyone who is not an Obama critic been concerned with a Constitutional crisis?
For crying out loud, our current President negotiated a treaty with a hostile foreign power with no consent from the Senate! He just created it out of thin air, and worse, the Senate just rolled over and let him do it!
If a President negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, that is not a Constitutional crisis. Quite the contrary: under the constitution, that's his job. [wikipedia.org] And it's the job of the Senate to ratify such a treaty with a supermajority. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Senate is not in the picture.
Re: (Score:3)
Since when has anyone who is not an Obama critic been concerned with a Constitutional crisis?
For crying out loud, our current President negotiated a treaty with a hostile foreign power with no consent from the Senate! He just created it out of thin air, and worse, the Senate just rolled over and let him do it!
If a President negotiates a treaty with a foreign power, that is not a Constitutional crisis. Quite the contrary: under the constitution, that's his job. [wikipedia.org] And it's the job of the Senate to ratify such a treaty with a supermajority. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Senate is not in the picture.
Actually, the Senate doesn't ratify most treaties with a supermajority. We rarely use that process. Normally what we do is to enact the terms of the treaty as ordinary federal law, with simple majorities in both houses and a signature from the president. This process produces what's called a "congressional executive treaty".
It should also be pointed out that the president can and does sign many treaties without the participation of either house. He does this when the terms of the treaty can be enacted ent
Re: (Score:3)
Being unable to change isn't the same thing as accepting. In virtually every poll, people have supported the idea of the national popular vote by a large margin, but as long as the party in control of most states [wikipedia.org] benefits from the current system, they're not going to change the laws.
Why don't voters just elect new representatives? Because of project REDMAP. The GOP has been funneling money disproportionately to down-ballot state races to gain governors and state congressional majorities, and from there, app
Re: (Score:2)
Can we kick her, along with anyone who committed voter fraud on her behalf, out of the country if the recount comes up with her still loosing?
The only actual case of voter fraud I remember reading about in this election was a white woman who voted for Trump twice, presumably because she was hoping he would grab her pussy at least once.
Re:President Trump (tm) (Score:5, Informative)
Are you trying to be oxymoronic? You simply cannot quote the parts of the constitution and ignore the specific parts pertaining to the election of the president to claim someone who failed those parts is the legit elected. Furthermore, you are basing this stupidity on the preamble to the constitution which describes the purpose for which is laid out within the constitution that you are actively ignoring.
Do they not teach simple civics and government in high school any more?
The electoral college was specifically set in place to allow "states" to elect the president of the united "states" instead of the people. The federal government has a president of the United States not the United "People". The congress and senate is the people's house and originally the senate represented the states (which is still does to a certain extent even after the constitution was amended to allow direct elections of the senators). The house of representatives was supposed to represent the people which is why all laws implementing taxes are supposed to originate there. The senate represented the states and the president is and was a figurehead to enact the sovereignty given up by the states. You have to remember, after the revolution, the thirteen colonies became 13 countries which eventually joined a confederation which ended up forming a constitutional republic that ceded only portions of their sovereignty. This is the entire purpose of the 9th and 10th amendments and article 1 section 8 that defines the original powers of the federal government.
I don't know if you actually understand this and are simply trying to convince the ignorant to be useful idiots or if you seriously never bothered reading past the preamble and skipped school during your civics classes or something. Either way, this isn't hard to find out which you probably should have already done if you actually care about the issue as much as your post pretends to. It is not like this isn't the first time that a president has won the electoral college but not the popular vote in your life time if you are actually old enough to vote. God help us if you actually claim to be educated higher than a high school level too.
Re:President Trump (tm) (Score:4, Informative)
Let's ask Donald Trump what he thinks of the electoral college:
https://twitter.com/realDonald... [twitter.com]
And let's ask him about how people should just suck it up and accept the results of the election:
https://twitter.com/realDonald... [twitter.com]
https://twitter.com/realDonald... [twitter.com]
So let's apply what you said to Donald Trump, first and foremost, huh?
Re:President Trump (tm) (Score:5, Interesting)
Fair enough. So you're the right person to ask: Was he bullshitting then or is he bullshitting now? Or was the electoral college really an abomination in 2012, but is a beautiful thing now? Was resistance the right thing to do in 2012, but is a Very Bad Thing now?
Or are the very concepts of logic and consistency rigged? How far will you debase your ability to reason in order to support this corrupt urinal cake?
Re: (Score:3)
Neither. Like Obama & Hillary on the subject of same-sex marriage... he 'evolved' on the issue ;)
Ask that once we have a final answer as to why 'dissent is patriotic' 2001-2008, racist from 2009-11/8/16, then back to patriotic come 11/9/16?
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly, it doesn't matter to you.
Re:She lost, get over it already (Score:5, Funny)
I guess they don't teach US civics in Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
They love Trump in the UK:
http://janeygodley.com/wp-cont... [janeygodley.com]
Re: Stunning level of disrespect. (Score:5, Funny)
We never elected biff tannor before
Re: (Score:2)
He'll be treated with respect once he earns it.