waitforufo

Fake it till you make it has gotten me a long way in my career. I have always considered job adverts to simply be a wish list of attributes for an ideal candidate who likely doesn't exist or won't apply. I have applied for jobs where I had very few if any of the job qualifications requested and landed the job. I have found that most employers are simply looking for a person willing to work diligently and learn quickly. Once on board, do the work everyone else avoids and your employer will be happy that someone is finally working those tasks and those who avoid doing those task will be happy to help you up the learning curve so they don't have to do that chore anymore. As a hiring manager the first thing I look at is work history. I look at and ask questions about every job the person ever had. That includes babysitting children for your neighbors, delivering news papers, working fast food restaurants, day labor, work study, etc. I have seen other managers higher people with advanced degrees straight out of college who never held a paying job in their lives. Such people often have no work socialization skills. They have no idea what it is like to show up at work five days a week, eight hours a day, with people they would likely never socialize. Work social skills that many learn washing dishes, clearing restaurant tables, or sacking groceries when they were in high school. An expectation to meet aggressive work schedules seem simply unfair to such individuals. The idea that they may have to work comp time to meet a deadline sends them into depression. I have seen many such candidates fail within a year. I have seen and been a hard working individual with little competence at the job hired for transferred to other better suited work, because employers rarely get rid of hard workers. So I recommend that if you don't have a job, get a job. Anything will do.

California wasn't even a state when the founders selected the electoral college as our method of selecting presidents, so I agree that California is not specifically the reason why we have the electoral college. Trump did not exist however when the electoral college was selected so I don't see how Trump could be the reason "why we have it." Now we do know that many of the founders did not want the president to be selected by national election at all. Many wanted the president to be selected by a joint act of congress, with no voting at all. You see they didn't trust the popular vote due to their fear of mob rule. The electoral college was selected as a compromise with those that wanted a national election determined by the popular vote. Hence each state having as many electors as they have house and senate members. States could select their electors any way their State legislatures decided. Again, no voting necessary. The state legislatures could simply vote amongst themselves on how there electors should vote. The founders knew at the time that if all states chose there electors by popular vote, that the national popular vote winner could lose the electoral college election. Such divergent elections were in fact expected. The founders did not want small States to be overlooked by the mob rule votes of high population states during national elections. They considered this a benefit of the electoral college method. So was California the reason for the electoral college? No, but the founders did not want large states overwhelming smaller states in choosing the president. Was Trump the reason for the electoral college? No, but the founders wanted candidates like Trump to win elections by appealing to a majority of States. This means that if the electoral college worked as intended, and Trump will properly be elected president on December 19. Well actually January 6, when the votes cast on December 19 are counted by congress. Stein and cahoots with Hillary? Fantasy. I the laws of the states involved are followed, recount all you want. Heck, I come from the great State of Washington, were votes are counted as many times as required to put a Democrat in office. Ask Christine Gregoire. I don't think the Democrats will have such luck this time around. By hey, good luck.

So by lengthy conversation do you mean a conversation that will last past January 20, 2017? If so, have at it. No, there isn't any threshold of discrepancy between popular and electoral vote that could be reached that would make me think "Hmm, maybe a constitutional amendment, brought about through the legally defined channels for doing so, would be a good idea." Now of course you and other US citizens may wish to abandon the electoral college in favor of the popular vote. I have pointed out the means through which this can be done. I strongly encourage you, and those of like mind to give it a try. Yes, I agree that Donald Trump is not officially president elect until January 6, 2017, when the electoral college votes are counted in congress, and then does not become president until January 20, 2017. I have never denied this. Perhaps you should read iNow's post 403, your post 405, ten oz's post 407, and Memammal's post 416. I think the system works as designed and works just fine. Change the constitution and I will change my perspective. I will then say we have to do it the new way. If you don't like the constitution, as I have pointed out, feel free to attempt to change it. Your hurdle will be high. If "We must follow our Constitution" is an empty statement, then the constitution is an irrelevant document. I doubt our country would be improved by dismissing the constitution as irrelevant. Yes, our country is a much larger piece of real estate with a much larger population then when it was founded. Each state, as it was added, understood that it would have to live under the constitution or work by constitutional means to change it. As you point out, the constitution has been amended in the past through constitutional means. I give you my strongest encouragement to attempt to change the constitution. I doubt you will succeed, but I wish you luck. Swansont is likely on a more productive path. The state legislature of each state can choose any means it prefers to cast it's electoral college votes. States don't even need to put presidents on the ballot, but could instead cast their state electoral college votes by legislative act. The state legislature could give that power to the state governor. My guess is that this would also fail. I just don't see smaller states diminishing there voice to the shouts of the popular vote. I have an even better solution. Why don't you pick presidential candidates that can win the electoral college? Instead you pick candidates like Al Gore and Hillary Clinton and then wonder why they lose. Obama didn't ignore entire segments of the population and won. Perhaps you should learn from Obama.

I was commenting on the popular vote count. The popular vote count is irrelevant. Donald Trump was elected by the states, in accordance with the US constitution, to be the next president of the United States. That is what you need to get over. Protest and attempt to obstruct him all you want, just quit denying that Trump won. I appreciate that you are simply in the bargaining stage of grief, but you are not going to win the bargain with irrelevant facts. No, there is no degree at which I would feel differently. We must follow our constitution. The constitution defines methods to change or amend the constitution. The time to change or amend the constitution would be when the rules defined by the constitution are followed and the changes are approved by three fourths of the states. Not a moment before then. Swansont, the iPhone won't be the president either.

Looks like he is going to follow through on what he said on the campaign trail. I don't see anything new on that list. Do you? No classified markings on the document. What's the big deal?

So what? Two million votes in the wrong states. Is there a point to this post? Trump won. Get over it.

Maybe they just couldn't get behind Hillary's "Believe in someone you don't believe" campaign slogan.

Have all the discussion and debate you want. I'm simply pointing out how high your hurdle is. I don't think you can clear it. If you want to focus your energy on eliminating the electoral college it will simply give you less time to do other things. I'm all in favor of that.

You can disagree with me all you want. I don't care if you think my arguments are bullsh*t. All that matters is can you follow the rules to change the constitution and get it done. First you have to propose an amendment and either get two thirds of both the house and the senate to approve it, or have two thirds of the states call for a constitutional convention. Then if the amendment gets approved by either of those means it still needs to receive approval by three quarters of the states. Those states don't need to put it to the people for a vote, their legislatures can decide. So what do you think your chances are? The states have never called for a constitutional convention. Republicans control two thirds of all state legislatures. Republicans control the US house and senate. Republicans just put their candidate in the white house because of Article II, Section I of the constitution. So please ignore my arguments and explain how your are going to pull of this progressive wet dream of eliminating the electoral college and moving to the popular vote for presidential elections? I think you have a better chance of convincing all those icky people who voted for Trump in all those deplorable places to vote for your progressive candidates. I'm sure that will take a lot of nose holding on your part. Perhaps you need a little more time in your safe space playing with play-doh to come to grip with the reality of your situation.

Your point being? The fact is we have a constitutional government. That constitution that defines that government permits changes by specific rules. If you want to change the constitution, follow those rules, and see if you can get it done. Other than that, arm yourself and start a revolution. The second amendment was put in the constitution for that specific purpose. Why do you keep explaining the rules to checkers when the game we are playing is chess?

I think you need to go and read my post (#911) again. Here is my suggestion from that post. Above I am explicitly encouraging you to attempt to change the constitution while at the same time acknowledging that the constitution permits such changes under specific rules. Personally I'm not two worried that such a change would be approved by three fourths of the states. Why would small states with fewer than five EVs choose to be ignored in presidential elections? Why would they further diminish there small voice? Take Hawaii for example. It has 4 electoral votes. Currently it votes Democrat. Do you really think however, that they will choose to have almost no voice in all future presidential elections by agreeing to a constitutional amendment to switch from the electoral college to the popular vote? My guess is they would not.

So? The Constitution was in place when their state joined the union. One does not need to visit a state to address that state's needs and concerns. Edit: Maps showing Trump / Clinton Americas. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/16/us/politics/the-two-americas-of-2016.html?_r=0

Gee, it seems that pesky constitution of the United States just keeps getting in the way of progressive dreams and goals. I know, why don't you push for a constitutional amendment change to Article II, Section 1 of the constitution. All you need to do is get three fourths of the states to agree. That process gives every state one equal vote. Why don't you show the CA vs. ID math for that one. Now the states can apportion their EV as they choose. Some states divide there EVs based on vote totals. I think these are all smaller states. I think it would be great if progressives in states like NY and CA would show the way by changing their state's apportionment from winner take all to divided by vote. Don't you? My guess is that those states understand the clout that come form there current system of winner take all. There is actually a very good reason for the electoral college. The presidency is the only office elected by the entire country. This country is the United States, not the United Populous. To insure that each state in these United States has a voice, EVs are set to equal congressional representation. Hence, ID has three. This forces presidential candidates to pay attention to the needs and concerns of small states as well as large ones. Take a look at the following map. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/how-election-maps-lie/ If presidential elections were determined by popular vote, would needs and concerns of states without any counties marked in red even be addressed during presidential election campaign's? To insure they are addressed, the founders set up the electoral college system. This forces presidential candidates to address the needs and concerns of small states as well as large. Presidential candidates that ignore such small states do so at their own peril. Donald Trump did not make that mistake.

The five stages of grief are denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Lots of anger right now. More however have moved on to bargaining and depression. Soon however there will be acceptance.

You know a forum has jumped the shark when they start saying people are Hitler. Here is an alternative. This one however is funnier.

If Medicare and Medicaid aren't part of the government and socialized medicine, what are they?

"Perhaps" but you don't know? Why don't you know? Why haven't they been made public. Without stated goals a protest simply looks like a fruitless temper tantrum. Don't you think the Democratic party running a red scare is a bit pathetic? Are the protesters hoping to restart the house committee on unamerican activities? Trump isn't required to make his tax returns public. What makes you think he is? Why do you think these protests will impact his failed university case? I don't see how they will. They at least legally should not. The election and his university case are completely unrelated. Yes, please by all means go on. I'm glad you find me funny.

Goals of the Trump protesters please? Anyone?

Fine, but the topic of this forum is "Trump Protesters". The electoral college system has existed since the founding of our country. It survived Bush/Gore. It will survive Trump/Clinton. Crying in one's beer over it is childish. If it's part of some kind of grieving catharsis I guess it has some point, but in the end the participants will just feel silly. What will they have accomplished? So again, what are the goals of the Trump protesters? Are they stated anywhere? I'd love to read them. If all they have is "not my president", well sorry, but yes Trump will very soon be. Presidents that did not win the popular vote. 1824: John Quincy Adams 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes 1888: Benjamin Harrison 2000: George W. Bush 2016: Donald J. Trump 11% of the time is not that uncommon.

Perhaps Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States has political significance here. http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/article-ii-section-1 I think it does because the popular vote is meaningless to the outcome of presidential elections.

I'm just curious about the goals of the protests and protesters. Is it simply a catharsis? Do they think it will change the outcome of the election? Do they think there is some path at the end of which Hillary Clinton or Tim Kaine would accept to serve as America's 45th president? Do they think the American people would accept such a constitutional crisis? Do they think it will impact the way Donald Trump will serve as president? Hillary Clinton has already conceded defeat both to Donald Trump personally and live on TV to the entire world. Do the protesters think she will take it back? Seems to simply be a catharsis to me. A rather childish one at that.

Lot's of people were not running for president. Hillary Clinton was. Hillary Clinton covered for Bill Clinton, and attacked the women who accused him. Then she went so far as to campaign that all such accusations should be believed. Hypocrisy. There is plenty of now publicly available information that the State Department knew fully well, at the time, that the attack in Benghazi was a planned terrorist attack. The Benghazi attack happened on 9/11/2012. Two months before President Obama's second term election. The spontaneous attack story caused by a BS movie was simply a lie to get Obama through the election. She even told that lie to the families of those kill and then called those grieving people liars when they reported it to the public. Finally, during the Benghazi congressional hearings she said "What difference at this point does it make?" Many Americans heard that as 'It worked, Obama won, so "what difference at this point does it make?"'. Well now she knows.

There are a few reasons. First, I generally post at work when I'm on a small break, so I'm in a hurry. When you are dyslectic like I am, writing in a hurry is never a good idea. Sometimes a read my own posts later and I'm shocked by my bad spelling, punctuation, and grammar. I edit those posts if no one has quoted them, but since I hold a contrarian opinions from almost everyone on this forum, that is rare. The post I made above was on Saturday morning, so I had more time. Second, because of my contrarian opinions, I get a lot of rather unpleasant replies to my posts including ganging up from other forum members. When that's happening, I do my best to give as well as I get. For example, I'm not an uncaring racist, wishing for the poor, immigrants, or minorities to starve to death or otherwise die. In fact I give 10% of my gross income to charity, give blood, volunteer at my local food bank, and pay my taxes. I know, shocking. Third, some are so set in their opinions, that they take a bit of shaking up to consider other ideas. The group think on this forum is rather extreme. Finally, with regard to our most recent presidential election, I'm exuberantly happy that Hillary Clinton lost and that middle America finally found its voice. I also don't believe that those that voted for Donald Trump were nothing but white, racist, uneducated hayseed country bumpkins. They were honest, law abiding, hard working, tax paying citizens. Thinking otherwise, in my opinion, is racists and bigoted. I think its hilarious that Hillary Clinton supporters, after Hillary shamed Donald Trump for saying he would wait for the results of the election before supporting the outcome, and conceded the election personally to Trump, and publicly to the Nation, are now protesting in the streets, and on this forum when Donald wins. Yes, he won. That pesky constitution we have gives no consideration to the popular vote. We are the United States, not the United Populous. Our founders wanted all sovereign States to have a say in who there leaders are, not just highly populated States, or in this case highly populated counties within states.

Was Obama's secret plan to wait until around 400,000 people died in the Syrian civil war before doing anything substantial?

So people who see a bright but different future for America are evil? How intellectually diverse of you.