Trump picks up 162 more votes in Wisconsin recount

no...IT WAS HER TURN!!!!

>>91318
There was every reason to believe that Wisconsin was like Pennsylvania.

>The result certified Monday shows Trump beating Democrat Hillary Clinton in the state by about 44,000 votes out of 6 million cast, or less than 1 percent. Trump's lead shrank over the last five weeks, from about 71,000 on election night.

http://www.wthr.com/article/wisconsin-recount-shows-little-change-trump-still-wins-state

Where'd the rest of the money go, Jill?

Murrica cucks with electoral college
Thinks they have democracy
"Greatest Democracy"

FREEDOM
>lmfao

>>91386
We never had a democracy we are a representative constitutional republic with oligarchic leanings the only democratic feature we have is the jury system where your peers who judge you are picked via lottery a key feature of a democracy.

>>91388
Then tell your leaders to stop talking about democracy and freedom.
It is just so much bullshit

>>91389
I wish they would.

>>91390
Then how would they distract you? W1N W1N

>>91386
You're a fag and an idiot. The US is a Republic. It isn't a democracy by definition, and only ignorant shitheads think it is. Also, only ignorant shitheads would ever want a democracy because the simple truth is that the majority of people are stupid.

>>91400
Of course it's not democratic; that's what sucks.
At least the electoral college as the founders concieved made sense. Trusted, educated citizens would be selected by the citizenry to vet candidates and choose a president.
The electoral college right now is neither democratic nor meritocratic. It's arbitrary as fuck. It's just, "let's count up the votes, put them through a nonsense machine, and see what the result is".
"But what about tyrrany of the majority" that's what the Senate is for.

>>91400
You don't seem to be very smart, especially when you grasp onto a 'red-pill', which is actually untrue.

You say a republic isn't a democracy by denfinition. This is untrue. A republic, as it was envisioned by the Founding Fathers, is democratic by definition. It is run by electors which represent the public, therefore it is an indirect democracy.

What you should say is that a republic is not a direct democracy by definition. There are plenty of checks on the mob's power in the US system, the electoral college being one of them.

Now we can debate just how democratic the US is, but there is no denying that it is an indirect democracy, even if electors may vote their conscience against the will of the public or in the interest of only a few who put them into power.

>post contains the word "liberals"
Didn't read
>you are threatened by different opinions
Didn't read

Libs will just move onto "fine, the votes are legit, but voters were influenced by Russian hackers." Anything to try to deny the legitimacy of Trump's presidency. Sorest losers ever.

>>91578
I'll agree that Trump's presidency is legitimate when the recount shows he didn't lose the popular vote by several million votes.

>>91318
But where are the millions and millions who voted illegally in states that would have gone blue irregardless?

The recount doesn't make Trump's presidency anymore legitimate in the eyes of the majority of voters who listen to him repeatedly deny the Russian involvement which he courted in a press conference asking them to release the 30,000 emails.

>>91578
You have a selective memory, because the Russian issue was complained about long before the votes were cast.

It doesn't matter if he won the electoral college. His presidency isn't legitimate when the majority of voters feel the presidency was usurped and thus hasn't the faith of the people from whom the power of the presidency ultimately controlled.

>>91579
Popular vote means nothing.

>>91579
So because Hillary won a game that no one was playing the presidency should go to her, even though it's never been done like that in the history of our republic?

>>91586
This is not the case. Nearly every president in history has played for the popular vote and no president has explicitly and openly played against it--Trump's campaign merely did so behind the scenes via an internal strategy to break the blue wall.

Campaigning against the will of the majority to be elected by a minority of people residing in certain states with proportionately more electoral college votes is, obviously, a recipe for instability.

The issue is not whether Trumps presidency is constitutional, but whether people feel his presidency is legitimate.

>>91600
>The issue is not whether Trumps presidency is constitutional, but whether people feel his presidency is legitimate.
The constitutional part is all that matters the ones who claim it is illegitimate are wrong as the election was never about winning the popular vote only about winning enough votes to get to 270.

>>91602
Again, this is not case. In order for the President to enact his legislative agenda, he must have a popular mandate otherwise the congress will not be responsive, unless of course, they just happen to agree on that agenda, but that is obviously not the case. Democrats in Congress will naturally oppose him while half of the Republican party will also oppose him because the Republican party is still divided on policy. This means that the majority of congress is mostly aligned with him and without a popular mandate the majority of the congress has no real incentive to follow him because they won't feel that they need to to get reelected.

By your logic, the President could all of a sudden reveal he was an anarcho-capitalist and start trying to implement anarcho-capitalist policies, but while he may still be the president as stipulated by the consitituion, we both know he wouldn't get anywhere because of politics. So politics matter as well as the constitution.

You're also wrong about the election being only about the electoral college, as I explained in the post you responded to. There is a reason why Presidents campaign for the popular vote, because historically, it correlates with the electoral college vote. Trump himself campaigned for the popular vote. He predicted he would win the popular vote but corrupt political establishment would win Hillary the electoral college vote. You remember, I'm sure, people admonishing Trump for potentially not accepting the election results based on the electoral college.

So you see, while it may be constitutional, the constitution itself is merely a constraint on politics and society. It cannot change the way people feel in the unlikely event that the electoral college differs from the popular vote. Completely disregarding the will of the majority in favor of a minority has historically not been a good thing.

I hope this helps you understand.

>>91612
this means that the maj of congress is NOT mostly aligned. sorry for the typo.

>>91612
Was not expecting a reasonable response thank you for writing it anon!

>>91614
no problem. I tried to sound neutral, although I personally do not like Trump, I think we can, expect a significant political battle ahead between Trump's side of the republican party and the other side, wherein the presidents legitimacy to enact a legislative agenda, which is strictly political, will be questioned. The hacking scandal will also likely be used as leverage if the Democrats aren't stupid enough to turn it into a partisan issue.

>>91318
Love the pic LOL

>>91619

You can already see the cracks in the foundation with the recent Secretary of State announcement. John McCain looks like he's about ready to launch a crusade against anyone with even remotely suspected Russian ties.

>if the Democrats aren't stupid enough to turn it into a partisan issue.

Which, if I understand correctly, is why Obama did nothing with it before the election: any push on the issue would look purely partisan. Now, however, with the votes in, the Republicans would have nothing to lose by allowing further investigation and everything to lose. If the investigation goes forward and if it's proven false the Democrats look like petty partisans and if it's real then HO SHIT BLAME THE SOVIETS. Meanwhile if they just brush off the hacks and it's fake they'll never prove it and will have that shadow over them for 4+ years, and if it's real then the Russians will be laughing their ass off as they pull the strings of the greatest puppet show in history.

>>91584
It means the American people support Hillary.

>>91586
I do not consider a presidency to be legitimate if they don't have support from the American people.

>>91634
63 million people voted for him. Even if a couple million more voted for Hillary, it's still disingenuous to say that Americans don't support Trump.

>>91318
Got a real news source for that?

>>91580
>irregardless

Dropped.

>>91318
>butt muh fake news!

Fake news is every single news outlet that has any television presence whatsoever.

>>91785
Good so I can rely on NPR.

>>91582
>isn't legitimate

Well he's going to the White House soooooo.....

>>91785
if that's your standard, that says more about your relationship with facts than the MSM

I think the legitimately funniest part of this is that they spent millions trying to get urban turnout up as much as possible in deep blue areas to make sure that Trump wouldn't win the popular vote.

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED, LEL.
>what kind of loser loses a billion dollars, says woman who spent 1.2 billion on a failed campaign

Under budget and ahead of schedule.

>>91612
>he must have a popular mandate otherwise the congress will not be responsive

Not true. The government is set up to make it very hard to change things on purpose. A Congress that doesn't work well with the President is what you want. Too many changes too quickly is what will really cause the instability you're so worried about.

> Democrats in Congress will naturally oppose him while half of the Republican party will also oppose him because the Republican party is still divided on policy.

That's why he's the better candidate.

>You're also wrong about the election being only about the electoral college, as I explained in the post you responded to.

I think the other anon was talking about functionally being about the electoral college i.e. it's what matters realistically, Also the government itself writes in the National Archives site that the electoral college is one of the most debating thing it Congress and has the most bills written about it, but it remains the same because of reasons laid out on the page.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/about.html

I also think while you grasp the concept as a whole you don't understand the finer points of how the electoral college operates and why it is better for stability.

>the constitution itself is merely a constraint on politics and society

Actually it's the opposite. The Constitution is where absolutely all societal and political power stems from in the US.

>the will of the majority in favor of a minority has historically not been a good thing.

And it actually doesn't happen that much and it rarely was ever a bad thing in the US. Please read the link I sent. It's a ,gov website. Don't take my word for it.

>>92052
>Not true. The government is set up to make it very hard to change things on purpose...the instability you're so worried about.

This doesn't make any sense. You say it's not true, but the points you make only reinforce my assertion. Indeed it is very hard for the president to enact a legislative agenda, primarily because the constitution does not explicitly grant that power, although it does give him influence over legislation through the presidential veto. The founders also recognized that the president's election would generally be a reflection of the general will of the nation by way of the popular vote and thus they vested him with the responsibility of delivering the state of the union address(a purely symbolic gesture). Indeed, the constitution is a constraint against change and indeed too many changes in a relatively short period of time is generally(not always) a source of instability.

And of course, the comment, "A Congress that doesn't work well with the President is what you want." is idiotic. We would never want a situation in which, for example, the President needed to quickly prepare the Armed Forces for an imminent invasion of the United States, but congress wouldn't provide the funding in a timely manner simply because of some animus between the two branches, even though such a scenario is possible.

>I think the other anon was talking about functionally being about the electoral college i.e. it's what matters realistically
Again, in reality it is both the popular vote and the electoral college that matters. I believe the anon concurred with my points on the ultimate importance of the popular vote on the president's legitimacy, and indeed I concurred that ultimately the electoral college is responsible for determining who is president. Again, must consider the definition of legitimacy. It's not only about who's legally president, but whether people feel someone SHOULD be president.

cont from >>92098

>I also think while you grasp the concept as a whole you don't understand the finer points of how the electoral college operates and why it is better for stability.

You have to be more careful when you're reading. My argument was not about which is better for stability, thus your assertion is not an argument.

>Actually it's the opposite. The Constitution is where absolutely all societal and political power stems from in the US.

Now this is where you egregiously contradict yourself and I hope you aren't offended by my stating it. You say it is not a constraint, that it's the opposite, but you before stated, "government is set up to make it very hard to change things on purpose." The government follows from the Constitution and change does not easily follow from the government, thus, by transitive relation, the Constitution constrains change.

But not only does it constrain in the sense that it constricts, it provides a set of constraints or limitations on the way government and society can function. In a state a nature, a society could form into a dictatorship or a mob rule and the constitution(a form of social contract) provides constraints against this to ENABLE a type of democratic republic. This is fundamental to the nature of a constitution.

>And it actually doesn't happen that much and it rarely was ever a bad thing in the US.
not an argument

>>92047
The funny part is really that Hillary is such a horrible candidate that any other traditional republican that ran besides Trump or Cruz would have beaten her in the popular vote by 10 points or more.

>>92100
Any, the funny apart about that is a traditional Republican candidate would have been so horrible, that a person like Bernie could have beaten them in the electoral college by 270 or more.