The Town of Odyssey

We can't stump Trump but I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on his potential conflicts of interest that could lead to him stumping himself.

Sure, here are my thoughts. The entire time he campaigned he said many things and he was accused of many things. The media always made it like "This is the end of Trump. There's no way he can recover from this!" Yet, he's President-Elect now.

I was asking you to comment specifically on how his business interests will be separated from him during his presidency or else we have a situation like Clinton had with her foundation when she was Secretary of State; which was bad right? How will Trump ensure he doesn't have similar conflicts of interest?

The heck if I know! I'm only a smol penguin.

P.S. you said thoughts so I gave you my thoughts Also, I never fully read your first paragraph about that conflict of interest but I'm not bothered so... I'll probably be bothered once he becomes President

How is it that everyone went crazy about Trump giving the possibility of not accepting the election outcome, not saying he definitely wouldn't; but the same people went rioting in the streets causing over a million of dollars in damages and two full weeks later are still calling for audits of votes and demanding electoral college members vote for Clinton regardless of how their state voted? This is beyond hypocrisy.

bookworm wrote:How is it that everyone went crazy about Trump giving the possibility of not accepting the election outcome

'Everyone' didn't go crazy. There was a subset of people who found Trump's statement disturbing, but obviously it wasn't everyone.

bookworm wrote:But the same people went rioting in the streets causing over a million of dollars in damages and two full weeks later are still calling for audits of votes and demanding electoral college members vote for Clinton regardless of how their state voted? This is beyond hypocrisy.

Obviously it's not the same population of people that's rioting, otherwise everyone would be rioting, which clearly isn't happening.

Rioting is bad, yes. I'm not disagreeing with you there. But you're taking the actions of the rioters (who didn't necessarily vote for Clinton) and drawing conclusions about all Clinton supporters. Furthermore, it's not necessarily hypocritical to have been horrified at Trump's statement, and now be protesting the election, or calling for electors to depart from their state's vote.

Tea Ess wrote:There was a subset of people who found Trump's statement disturbing, but obviously it wasn't everyone.

Clearly I wasn't referring to 'everyone on earth' the 'everyone' was of the people who had a reaction to Trump's comments. As far as I saw if someone was saying something about it they came down on the critical side.

Tea Ess wrote:

bookworm wrote:But the same people went rioting...

Obviously it's not the same population of people that's rioting, otherwise everyone would be rioting

This is correct; I noticed right after I posted that this part was ambiguously worded.
"The same people" can be read as saying "every one of the aforementioned" but I was using it to simply say individuals from the second group were also members of the first.

Tea Ess wrote:But you're taking the actions of the rioters (who didn't necessarily vote for Clinton) and drawing conclusions about all Clinton supporters.

I'm not drawing conclusions about anyone, I'm talking directly and only about the people involved. I didn't say all Clinton supporters were doing this, and I wasn't narrowing my remark at only the protesters themselves. They're of course the main part, but this also extends to those who are excusing their actions. Even if they denounce the violence, if they're saying it's understandable people are so upset and they need to keep up the protest they fall into this. Because this isn't about the riots I'm talking about the broader reaction behind them. See next paragraph.

Tea Ess wrote:it's not necessarily hypocritical to have been horrified at Trump's statement and now be protesting the election

Please explain this to me. I don't say that antagonizingly, I genuinely want to know what you mean by this because either you're not understanding the point I was making or I am really missing something you see. It is undeniably hypocritical. They are literally doing exactly what they had previously blasted Trump about. In fact they're going even further because they're actually doing what he only said he might do. Three weeks ago the message was "How DARE he maybe not accept the outcome! If it doesn't go his way he has to just accept it!' Today: "We WILL NOT accept this outcome! How dare anyone tell us we should!"

Either they're wrong for reacting this way now, or they're wrong for acting that way then. There's no third option. If not accepting the election outcome is wrong to do, it's wrong to do independent of which side is doing it.

Political advice to a campaign.

When you're gonna lecture someone on respecting women, DO NOT send out Miley, Beyoncé, and certainly not Kim Kardashian to do it. It's arrogant and rude.

The Top Crusader wrote:Well, if the rumors pan out that Mitt Romney may be Secretary of State, all will be forgiven.

Well, Trump seems to be appointing the... President of Exxon for some reason? Oh, and he has ties to Russia, Vlad himself literally awarded him a medal of friendship. All is most definitely not forgiven.

Sorry it took so long for me to respond to this.

bookworm wrote:"The same people" can be read as saying "every one of the aforementioned" but I was using it to simply say individuals from the second group were also members of the first.

My main disagreement with your earlier post was that it seemed to be making a generalization and equating the two groups of people as a means of invalidating the concerns of the first group. Not that it was your intention, that's just how it came across.

bookworm wrote:Please explain this to me. I don't say that antagonizingly, I genuinely want to know what you mean by this because either you're not understanding the point I was making or I am really missing something you see. It is undeniably hypocritical. They are literally doing exactly what they had previously blasted Trump about. In fact they're going even further because they're actually doing what he only said he might do. Three weeks ago the message was "How DARE he maybe not accept the outcome! If it doesn't go his way he has to just accept it!' Today: "We WILL NOT accept this outcome! How dare anyone tell us we should!"

I don't think that's necessarily accurate. One could have been horrified at Trump's statement and when he was elected, decided to protest to show solidarity with minorities, for example. Or maybe some protesters are hoping to catch the attention of an elector in the hopes that the Electoral College will choose someone else. A person with that line of reasoning could have been shocked at Trump's comments for their vague and ominous nature (after all, what does "not accepting the results of the election" mean? Armed revolt? Snide remarks on Twitter? ), while hoping to change the results of the election through a legal mechanism that already exists.

Are there some hypocritical people protesting? Probably. But I'm more concerned with Trump's statement than with what a random protester's line of reasoning is.

What do people think about the assessment made by the CIA that Russia influenced the election in favor of Trump?

Tea Ess wrote:while hoping to change the results of the election through a legal mechanism that already exists.

ie: not accepting the outcome of the election. Which was absolutely unacceptable when Trump hinted at it, but it's entirely acceptable, and even celebrated, now that it's the other side doing it?

The primary message I was pushing you left out:

bookworm wrote:Either they're wrong for reacting this way now, or they're wrong for acting that way then. There's no third option. If not accepting the election outcome is wrong to do, it's wrong to do independent of which side is doing it.

I don't have a problem with people who are upset about the result making their disappointment known (through legal and peaceful means only) that's their right to do. And it would have been Trump's same right to do had he been the loser. But when he was doing it that was "threatening our democracy" according to Clinton herself. So which is it?

I plan to get up Monday morning, eat breakfast, help out my grandpa with his racer in the garage, hop on a call at work, finish the call, turn on C-SPAN, watch the votes...

AND LAUGH. AND LAUGH. AND LAUGH SOME MORE.

Because guess what? WE WON!

Man up or woman up all ye who dwell on college campuses! I hate to offend you, but Jesus is still on the throne.

Which is actually good news for liars, adulturers, murderers, idolaters, rapists, and, yes, homosexuals. Because you have time to repent. But you have no idea how much, so why wait?

George Soros will not be there to help you at the Judgment Seat. At this rate he'll have problems of his own.

My mirth at this overblown temper tantrum knows no bounds!!!

Donald Trump will not be there to help you at the Judgement Seat, he'll have problems of his own.

At Christ's judgement seat you will not be asked who you voted for or whether you mocked your political opponents enough or whether you judged homosexuals enough. Instead you shall be asked, Did you feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the sick and the prisoners? That is all you shall be asked.

Heed your own council Dredge, repent.

Live Updates

-- 19 Dec 2016 10:10 am --

The only reported faithless elector so far is one actually planning to take a vote away from Clinton.

-- 19 Dec 2016 11:25 am --

The first official faithless elector, as the one linked previously hasn't voted yet, was another Democrat who refused to vote for Clinton. They have been replaced.

-- 19 Dec 2016 12:20 pm --

The first elector's vote for Sanders was disallowed and they changed to Clinton.

-- 19 Dec 2016 02:11 pm --

4 more Democrats have refused to vote for Clinton. An additional 3 attempted not to but their votes were changed.

-- 19 Dec 2016 06:14 pm --

Final results: Trump 304, Clinton 227, Others 7
Despite all the clamor Trump only lost two electors; Clinton lost 5 with another 5 wanting to dissent but unable.

The final results make me happy

Hey, I voted Constitution Party.

In other news, the vote split this election has been the largest thus far in the history of the United States. Not that the election results are any different, but it's quite a different picture than the one Trump is trying to paint with the talk of winning the electoral vote by a "massive landslide," which is patently false.

bookworm wrote:

bookworm wrote:Either they're wrong for reacting this way now, or they're wrong for acting that way then. There's no third option. If not accepting the election outcome is wrong to do, it's wrong to do independent of which side is doing it.

I don't have a problem with people who are upset about the result making their disappointment known (through legal and peaceful means only) that's their right to do. And it would have been Trump's same right to do had he been the loser. But when he was doing it that was "threatening our democracy" according to Clinton herself. So which is it?

There's a massive difference between a presidential candidate and a random protester in terms of their influence over the United States and the potential to cause unrest and violence. Personally, I also see a large difference between ranting about how Hillary rigged the election and "the illegals" causing the vote split, and peacefully protesting/asking your elector to change their vote. You've boiled a complex and polarizing situation down to the single statement of "not accepting the results of the election." People are going to have different lines of reasoning, and there's different ways to not accept the results of the election. For example, peacefully protesting versus armed rebellion.

Going by that metric alone, are there hypocritical people out there somewhere? Probably, as I stated before. But again, I don't really care that much about a hypocritical protester as much as the behavior of the president-elect.

I understand what you're trying to say about the 'difference', but I'm not buying that it applies to the situation in the way you're saying.
If someone truly believed Trump was alluding to revolution with those remarks then yes obviously it's not the same as that person calling for recounts. But it's quite a leap to read such extreme subtext into simple hesitation to say one would immediately concede the election no questions asked without considering options. Those options being the legal and proper channels of recounts and audits: exactly what Clinton's people pushed for.

The undeniable hypocrites I am referring to are the ones who said Trump shouldn't even hypothetically consider taking these perfectly proper courses of contesting the results, but immediately jumped on them themselves when it ended up being their candidate that lost.

Amerigo Primero wrote:I plan to get up Monday morning, eat breakfast, help out my grandpa with his racer in the garage, hop on a call at work, finish the call, turn on C-SPAN, watch the votes...

AND LAUGH. AND LAUGH. AND LAUGH SOME MORE.

Because guess what? WE WON!

Man up or woman up all ye who dwell on college campuses! I hate to offend you, but Jesus is still on the throne.

Which is actually good news for liars, adulturers, murderers, idolaters, rapists, and, yes, homosexuals. Because you have time to repent. But you have no idea how much, so why wait?

George Soros will not be there to help you at the Judgment Seat. At this rate he'll have problems of his own.

My mirth at this overblown temper tantrum knows no bounds!!!

This is why we can't have nice things.

Reportedly we could have had President Romney and 'everyone' would be happy. At least more than they are now.