The people have spoken and the bad losers in Britain and America - who think they know better - ignore them at their peril. (And if that sounds like a threat - it is!)

[Sanguine]

By Katie Hopkins for MailOnline

Published: 09:28 EST, 25 November 2016 | Updated: 20:10 EST, 25 November 2016

If you live in London, New York or LA, this article will mean nothing to you.

Just like an anniversary card delivered late, a Finnish film without subtitles or the ultrasonic squeal of a baby Tarsier monkey – you just won’t feel it.

But take it from me, outside the bubble in which you live there is a crackling in the air. A tension.

Sixty million people voted for Trump because they believe it is the right thing for America

That angry feeling people get when they try to speak to their boss and see in his eyes that he is only pretending to listen, that he is never going to change because he thinks he knows best.

And now they are back at their desk fuming.

We are the 17.4million people who voted for Brexit. Sitting here fuming at our ‘boss’. Seventeen point four million good people, all sick of not being heard.

All feeling compelled to raise our voice until we cannot be ignored; to take a pee in the water cooler; to storm out and march about the foyer naked with ‘Why don’t you listen, you arrogant b******s?’ tattooed on our backside.

In the United States, too, more meetings with a boss who doesn’t listen. And here the figure is sixty million. Sixty million people who voted for Trump because they believe it is the right thing for America...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3971530/KATIE-HOPKINS-people-spoken-bad-losers-Britain-America-think-know-better-ignore-peril-sounds-like-threat-is.html

She makes some good points.

[Oceander]

Uhm, I'd be very careful about claiming that "the people" spoke in the recent election.  Lest you forget, Trump lost the popular election, so no, "the people" did not elect Trump, the electoral college did (or, to be more precise, almost certainly will).

[Sanguine]

Uhm, I'd be very careful about claiming that "the people" spoke in the recent election.  Lest you forget, Trump lost the popular election, so no, "the people" did not elect Trump, the electoral college did (or, to be more precise, almost certainly will).

And, I think the writer is careful to make that distinction.  However, much of this applies even to those of us who didn't/don't think that Trump is the solution.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Uhm, I'd be very careful about claiming that "the people" spoke in the recent election.  Lest you forget, Trump lost the popular election, so no, "the people" did not elect Trump, the electoral college did.

Uhm... and I'd be very careful about dissing the Electoral College and the cornerstone of a Representative Republic the Founders designed it to be.

But, then again, I'm a Constitutionalist so maybe we just see things differently.   

[LMAO]

Uhm, I'd be very careful about claiming that "the people" spoke in the recent election.  Lest you forget, Trump lost the popular election, so no, "the people" did not elect Trump, the electoral college did (or, to be more precise, almost certainly will).

The same EC that Trump himself once called a  "disaster for Democracy?" Lol

The Electoral College is one of the safeguards against the  "Tyranny of the Majority." The framers were wise to put that system in lest we descend into a pure democracy.

In the case of the Popular vote as a statement of the American people, you then could say the people of CA and NY have spoken

[truth_seeker]

Uhm... and I'd be very careful about dissing the Electoral College and the cornerstone of a Representative Republic the Founders designed it to be.

But, then again, I'm a Constitutionalist so maybe we just see things differently.   

Okay, then can we talk about Mrs. Obama's wardrobe for a couple of weeks?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Okay, then can we talk about Mrs. Obama's wardrobe for a couple of weeks?

Yes.  Priorities, after all.     @truth_seeker

[Right_in_Virginia]

The same EC that Trump himself once called a  "disaster for Democracy?" Lol

Methinks he's come into the light on this one.      

[Cripplecreek]

The same EC that Trump himself once called a  "disaster for Democracy?" Lol

The Electoral College is one of the safeguards against the  "Tyranny of the Majority." The framers were wise to put that system in lest we descend into a pure democracy.

In the case of the Popular vote as a statement of the American people, you then could say the people of CA and NY have spoken

I personally don't care what the popular vote is. Its kind of meaningless but serves as a warning about populism.

[Fishrrman]

Oceander wrote above:
"I'd be very careful about claiming that "the people" spoke in the recent election.  Lest you forget, Trump lost the popular election, so no, "the people" did not elect Trump, the electoral college did (or, to be more precise, almost certainly will)."

Got an email the other day -- one of those "chain emails" that "goes around".
May mean something. Maybe not.
But it's interesting.
Here it is:
==================
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
 
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
 
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
 
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
 
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
 
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Uhm, I'd be very careful about claiming that "the people" spoke in the recent election.  Lest you forget, Trump lost the popular election, so no, "the people" did not elect Trump, the electoral college did (or, to be more precise, almost certainly will).

Everyone knew before the vote that the EC determines the result.  If the result is tossed out because some don't like it, then the core covenant legitimizing government authority is broken, and violence is justified.

At that point, a couple of million popular votes either way won't matter.  The Constitution is no longer in effect.

[Smokin Joe]

Everyone knew before the vote that the EC determines the result.  If the result is tossed out because some don't like it, then the core covenant legitimizing government authority is broken, and violence is justified.

At that point, a couple of million popular votes either way won't matter.  The Constitution is no longer in effect.

A sobering point, but a valid one.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Everyone knew before the vote that the EC determines the result.  If the result is tossed out because some don't like it, then the core covenant legitimizing government authority is broken, and violence is justified.

At that point, a couple of million popular votes either way won't matter.  The Constitution is no longer in effect.

Agree.

[HonestJohn]

Oceander wrote above:
"I'd be very careful about claiming that "the people" spoke in the recent election.  Lest you forget, Trump lost the popular election, so no, "the people" did not elect Trump, the electoral college did (or, to be more precise, almost certainly will)."

Got an email the other day -- one of those "chain emails" that "goes around".
May mean something. Maybe not.
But it's interesting.
Here it is:
==================
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
 
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
 
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
 
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
 
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
 
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

All that says is that more Americans live in cities than in all the rural areas of America combined.

And unless you plan on being the next Pol Pot and depopulating the cities... that's reality.

[Sanguine]

All that says is that more Americans live in cities than in all the rural areas of America combined.

And unless you plan on being the next Pol Pot and depopulating the cities... that's reality.

No, it says that a few, small, roughly homogenous areas control most of the popular vote with the implication being that the EC allows for voters in the whole rest of the nation to have some value to their votes.

And, how did Pol Pot get into this conversation?    What?

[Oceander]

Oceander wrote above:
"I'd be very careful about claiming that "the people" spoke in the recent election.  Lest you forget, Trump lost the popular election, so no, "the people" did not elect Trump, the electoral college did (or, to be more precise, almost certainly will)."

Got an email the other day -- one of those "chain emails" that "goes around".
May mean something. Maybe not.
But it's interesting.
Here it is:
==================
There are 3,141 counties in the United States.
Trump won 3,084 of them.
Clinton won 57.
 
There are 62 counties in New York State.
Trump won 46 of them.
Clinton won 16.
 
Clinton won the popular vote by approx. 1.5 million votes.
 
In the 5 counties that encompass NYC, (Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, Richmond & Queens) Clinton received well over 2 million more votes than Trump. (Clinton only won 4 of these counties, Trump won Richmond)
Therefore these 5 counties alone, more than accounted for Clinton winning the popular vote of the entire country.
 
These 5 counties comprise 319 square miles.
The United States is comprised of 3,797,000 square miles.
 
When you have a country that encompasses almost 4 million square miles of territory, it would be ludicrous to even suggest that the vote of those that encompass a mere 319 square miles should dictate the outcome of a national election.

Bull and sh*t.

How much land there is does not determine how much power there should be.  Should the Sahara and the few nomads who wander it be accorded more political power simply because the Sahara is so vast?

What you advocate smacks of the landed gentry, what the Founders rebelled against.  Are you advocating a return to monarchy and the landed nobility?

The fact of the matter is, "the people" did not speak through the election of Trump, a minority with the good luck to have the Founders' machinations on their side spoke.

You need to deal with the fact that the American people are not on Trump's side.  And you need to deal with it fast.

[Cripplecreek]

You need to deal with the fact that the American people are not on Trump's side.  And you need to deal with it fast.

While true, it has nothing at all to do with the electoral college or the popular vote. This election is most accurately characterized by the "unpopular vote". Nearly 45% of registered voters didn't even vote. That leaves somewhere short of 60% to split their vote between 2 unpopular candidates. Also there's the fact that less than half of eligible Americans even register so we're talking about a small minority voting for the winner.

The primaries were a whole different fuster cluck of their own.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

You need to deal with the fact that the American people are not on Trump's side.  And you need to deal with it fast.

To quote a former Secretary of State, "What difference does it make?"

Trump won the EC, which is how we choose our Presidents.  The GOP also won the House and Senate.  So, there's nothing to "deal with" for those of us who voted for Trump in the general, and supported GOP candidate down-ticket.  Democrats and others can complain all they want to about Clinton winning the popular vote, but ultimately, it's irrelevant.  The only relevance at this point is the GOP margins in the House and Senate.

Moving forward, Trump will have to convince Republicans in Congress to support his plans, or they likely won't get enacted.  The popular vote totals will have nothing to do with that. 

[HonestJohn]

No, it says that a few, small, roughly homogenous areas control most of the popular vote with the implication being that the EC allows for voters in the whole rest of the nation to have some value to their votes.

And, how did Pol Pot get into this conversation?    What?

Cities are the least homogeneous regions of our nation.  Rich, poor, immigrants, and ethnic groups of all stripes live in them.

Rural areas are the homogeneous regions.

And Pol Pot depopulated Cambodia's cities and sent all their inhabitants to the fields.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Even many who cast a vote for Trump can't really stand him.  They just hated Hillary more.  Trump won.  But he has no room to waggle a finger at "sore losers."  It was his own campaign shaming and bullying people into choosing "the lesser of two evils."  Only a few really like him.  Exit polls showed 60 something percent had a negative view of him (higher than Hillary, yet because of issues, they voted for him anyway).  Fifty some percent were either scared or very worried to see him as President.  Some of THOSE voted for him.  So no one can honestly claim that he has any sort of a mandate or that losers are "sore" or that he even really won the election in any positive sense.  Hillary lost the election.  That's all you can say.   She lost the electoral college and it does matter.  But ignoring that a majority of those lesser evil voters thought Hillary was the lesser evil is ignoring reality.

I'm one of those. I can't stand Trump. He's a pinhead, arrogant and a blowhard. He has let me down everytime I've thought about supporting him. There's just nothing there. He has no character and poor character.


In my mind, I was voting to save the USSC, which is one task I actually think he can accomplish.


I agree with those who say he won't last 4 years. Might not last 1. Who knows?

[Sanguine]

Cities are the least homogeneous regions of our nation.  Rich, poor, immigrants, and ethnic groups of all stripes live in them.

Rural areas are the homogeneous regions.

And Pol Pot depopulated Cambodia's cities and sent all their inhabitants to the fields.

Of course I was referring to political homogeneity and that point still stands.

To bring Pol Pot into the conversation seems a bit of an overkill.

[HonestJohn]

Of course I was referring to political homogeneity and that point still stands.

To bring Pol Pot into the conversation seems a bit of an overkill.

The point of that was to point out that the only way to decrease the concentration of the US populace in cities... one would have to adopt the policy of Pol Pot, ie: depopulate the cities.

And that would have to be done by force. 

[truth_seeker]

Nevertrumpers on THIS site sound EXACTLY like democrats-Hillary supporters, leftists, etc.

Same objections to Trump, and the election outcome.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Nevertrumpers on THIS site sound EXACTLY like democrats-Hillary supporters, leftists, etc.

Same objections to Trump, and the election outcome.

I still count myself a conservative, but sometimes the "left" is right. This guy is already a huge embarrassment IMO.

[Sanguine]

The point of that was to point out that the only way to decrease the concentration of the US populace in cities... one would have to adopt the policy of Pol Pot, ie: depopulate the cities.

And that would have to be done by force.

If that was your point,  you missed the point entirely.