Will Trump last his full presidential term ?

[andyofborg 11]

Has this system been criticised before this election ?

 

yes.......................

 

from 2012

 

https://www.minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2012/10/10-reasons-why-electoral-college-problem

[Supertramp 10]

Has this system been criticised before this election ?

 

Yes, by Trump himself. here you go...

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/09/trump-called-electoral-college-disaster-2012-tweet/93575326/

 

---------- Post added 29-03-2017 at 09:24 ----------

 

Not all of them surely ? Certainly not the ones who only voted for Trump because they disliked Clinton even more ? I read a piece the other day that if Obama could have stood again he`d have comfortably beaten Trump. Similarly, if Mitt Romney had have stood (for the Republicans) he`d have got a bigger majority than Trump. Not that Trump actually got a majority but you know what I mean.

 

You are confusing 'his supporters' with people who voted for him. He has a core support of about 35% of the electorate and I don't think it will drop below that even if he went around shooting Mexicans from his motorcade.

[Justin Smith 10]

Not all of them surely ? Certainly not the ones who only voted for Trump because they disliked Clinton even more ? I read a piece the other day that if Obama could have stood again he`d have comfortably beaten Trump. Similarly, if Mitt Romney had have stood (for the Republicans) he`d have got a bigger majority than Trump. Not that Trump actually got a majority but you know what I mean.

 

But the reality is that the people wanted Mr. Trump.

 

That`s not the message I read from that poll. Even if we forget about the fact Trump actually got less votes than Clinton, the message I got is neither candidate was popular, and, it implied, almost any other candidate would have beaten either Trump or Clinton.

[harvey19 541]

That`s not the message I read from that poll. Even if we forget about the fact Trump actually got less votes than Clinton, the message I got is neither candidate was popular, and, it implied, almost any other candidate would have beaten either Trump or Clinton.

Why were there no other candidates then ?

[glennpickard 10]

I think the only other seriously considered candidate was Bernie Sanders. But HRC had collected so many early Electoral College vote commitments, that he was not able to overcome the lead she had lobbied for/built up well before the election.

I saw a few polls that all said he would have beaten Trump handily had he got the Democratic nomination.

I read a lot of stuff on the US side saying voters went to Trump in despair because they feared the political status quo continuing if HRC had won.

 

Hard to envisage a worse outcome than the one which emerged, esp. now that at least two of the Trump team are in deep duda with their Russian alliances/contacts/support etc. It appears that the truth as to their actions may emerge soon

[Michael_J 10]

I think the only other seriously considered candidate was Bernie Sanders. But HRC had collected so many early Electoral College vote commitments, that he was not able to overcome the lead she had lobbied for/built up well before the election.

I saw a few polls that all said he would have beaten Trump handily had he got the Democratic nomination.

I read a lot of stuff on the US side saying voters went to Trump in despair because they feared the political status quo continuing if HRC had won.

 

Hard to envisage a worse outcome than the one which emerged, esp. now that at least two of the Trump team are in deep duda with their Russian alliances/contacts/support etc. It appears that the truth as to their actions may emerge soon

 

That man is a walking and talking security risk for the US. Neither he nor his administration are qualified to run a country... Just look at how members of his team have been spilling state secrets/using private emails for government-related communication. With that being said, Hilary wouldn't have been a much better electoral option, but it would have been the lesser evil. Trump is way too discriminatory in his words and his actions and I think it's just a matter of time before he ****** off someone he shouldn't have. To add on top of that, he is quite hypocritical in his actions against the immigrants, given the fact that his wife comes from eastern Europe. There are many other disgusting things about him, such as when he hinted that he would have s*x with his own daughter if he wasn't her father. My bet is that he'd either die from something like a stress-induced heart attack, or he'll simply get assassinated. I'm willing to bet a quid on that. Any takers?

[Supertramp 10]

That man is a walking and talking security risk for the US. Neither he nor his administration are qualified to run a country... Just look at how members of his team have been spilling state secrets/using private emails for government-related communication. With that being said, Hilary wouldn't have been a much better electoral option, but it would have been the lesser evil. Trump is way too discriminatory in his words and his actions and I think it's just a matter of time before he ****** off someone he shouldn't have. To add on top of that, he is quite hypocritical in his actions against the immigrants, given the fact that his wife comes from eastern Europe. There are many other disgusting things about him, such as when he hinted that he would have s*x with his own daughter if he wasn't her father. My bet is that he'd either die from something like a stress-induced heart attack, or he'll simply get assassinated. I'm willing to bet a quid on that. Any takers?

 

Ooooh a whole quid. I'll bet that he gets re-elected.

[Michael_J 10]

Ooooh a whole quid. I'll bet that he gets re-elected.

 

You're on. Would you mind getting a quid soaked in tears, though, because I'd be really sad if you turn out to be a clairvoyant or something.

[Justin Smith 10]

I feel dreadfully embarrassed. I have to admit I actually approve of something Trump has done, namely bombing the Syrian airbase which was reputed to have launched the chemical attack. Of course it`s actually going against another of his campaign promises (don`t get involved in foreign wars) so does that increase or decrease the chances he`ll serve his full term ? Or increase or decrease his popularity ?

[Jacktari 10]

I feel dreadfully embarrassed. I have to admit I actually approve of something Trump has done, namely bombing the Syrian airbase which was reputed to have launched the chemical attack. Of course it`s actually going against another of his campaign promises (don`t get involved in foreign wars) so does that increase or decrease the chances he`ll serve his full term ? Or increase or decrease his popularity ?

 

He is pulling the Thatcher tactic, and among the rabble it did her no harm.

Don't be fooled as we were 35 years ago.

Making war against a weaker foe, where victory is practically nailed on, is a sure fire way to court popularity among the thickoes.

[mafya 240]

I feel dreadfully embarrassed. I have to admit I actually approve of something Trump has done, namely bombing the Syrian airbase which was reputed to have launched the chemical attack. Of course it`s actually going against another of his campaign promises (don`t get involved in foreign wars) so does that increase or decrease the chances he`ll serve his full term ? Or increase or decrease his popularity ?

 

Assad didn't launch the chemical weapons, you are actually approving of a false flag operation to help the terrorists disguised as so called rebels to overthrow Assad.

Why would Assad use chemicals when he is winning the war?

An investigation has not been completed and Assad is already found to be the culprit?

The Syrian version that they bombed a rebel area where they were storing chemical weapons sounds more plausible.

[Justin Smith 10]

Assad didn't launch the chemical weapons, you are actually approving of a false flag operation to help the terrorists disguised as so called rebels to overthrow Assad.

Why would Assad use chemicals when he is winning the war?

An investigation has not been completed and Assad is already found to be the culprit?

The Syrian version that they bombed a rebel area where they were storing chemical weapons sounds more plausible.

 

In some ways I agree with you that the chemical attack makes no sense, but your last comment has been debunked. In addition on R4`s Today programme the presenter was saying a Guardian journalist was actually in the vicinity and says no damage (from a conventional bombing attack) was found.