Trump has NO mandate

By winning the election, Trump gained the AUTHORITY to pursue ALL of his expected agendas, but not the OBLIGATION to carry out ANY of them. I think that the main expectation that EACH Trump supporter has is that his or her individual economic status will dramatically improve. Because he is a businessman and not a politician, they feel that he will be able to accomplish this without the restrictions of government red tape.

However, businesses that make consumers rich rather than exploiting them is a novel and unconventional idea, so he is entering uncharted territory.

I personally think that we CANNOT improve our country's economy unless we prioritize the welfare of its people.

 

People who didn't see Carter get castrated often say silly things like that.

Reagan did.

The Popular Vote in conjunction with the Electoral College can indicate a mandate.

You're ignoring the rural factor....rural Americans came out to vote in droves to protect the 2nd Amendment.

 

Wealth Redistribution won't do squat for your economy.

 

"In our personal ambitions we are individualists. But in our seeking for economic and political progress as a nation, we all go up or else all go down as one people."

"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have little."

"Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle." . . . . . QUOTES OF FDR

 

And FDR started this downward spiral. The Social programs takes BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars, dollars that could otherwise go into your accounts. And then the programs don't pay out as much as they take in. A double whammy of incompetence. It of course went even further down from there.

Don't trust Dems with the economy, ever.

 

FDR was the ONLY American President to be elected 4 times. . . . Apparently voters then were not as smart as you. . . . Or maybe more patriotic?

ANOTHER FDR QUOTE: "It is an unfortunate human failing that a full pocketbook often groans more loudly than an empty stomach."

 

Yes, the American Electorate is stupid. I never ever questioned that fact.

 

Ahh Ronstar, we meet again! I can't help but notice that you're banned. What's with that? Anyway, down to business:

Presidents do not pursue legislative agendas, or at least they're not supposed to. The GOP has a 22 seat majority in the lower house, and a 2 seat majority in the upper house. So yes, they absolutely have a mandate despite delicious liberal tears.

The popular vote has no legal significance.

Trump: 306EV. Game over, /thread.

Very true, and it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. No doubt he'll take Tim Kaine's advice and use the nuclear option to pass 1 to 3 SCOTUS nominees through the Senate (depending on how many liberal justices cark it before 2020).

The remainder of legislation seems uncertain at this point. Remember: the Congress is sovereign, and therefore Senate rules can be amended with a simple majority, but given what many Republicans were saying in the 111th Congress it would be hypocritical of them to do so. Has that ever been an obstacle to them before? Not especially. They can be a detestable bunch, but that doesn't take away their legal authority. Expect the filibuster to be overridden if required.

Lots of things resulted in Trump winning. Texas not switching to D won him the election, but that's almost a given. What really won him the EC was a lot of disillusioned Obama voters in the midwest switching over to Trump.

Admit it, we all knew it, Noam Chomsky called it before the 08' Democratic nomination: Barrack Obama was never going to bring hope and change. He never was the anti-establishment candidate. But he exploited that rhetoric and a lot of people bought into it. These people have now been exploited by Donald Trump. Time will tell if he'll be able to maintain the facade until 2024 like Brobama, or fail to deliver in 2020.

NO.

This is a (perhaps wilful) falsehood. Very few countries elect their leaders by a FPTP national popular vote. We in Australia for instance (as with most parliamentary, majoritarian democracies) elect Members of Parliament in our respective electorates, who then vote to provide confidence in a Prime Minister. The national popular vote is irrelevant. The only differences are:

1. Our votes are tabulated within smaller electorates rather than your larger states (winner still takes all, leading to scenarios where you lose the NPV but win)

2. Your "electors" don't get a seat in the lower house. They appoint the President then sod off.

[hr][/hr]

Stop perpetrating this lie.

Your liberal tears are so incredibly delicious

He is the POTUS. His party has majorities in both Houses. They have a legal right to do whatever they want which is in line with the constitution.

This talking point is irrelevant: it has no legal basis. It's just you having a cry.

Perhaps, but that's politics. You do what you think will win you votes, and Donald will do what he thinks will win him votes.

Personally I think a capitulation to the establishment would mean an extraordinary defeat in 2020. His colleagues in the House should push through their agenda with whatever tools are legally at their disposal (ie: suspension of the filibuster). 2018 is then irrelevant, because either:

a) People will like Trump and the GOP Congress for their strength and will double down, or

b) People will think they've gone too far and keep the Senate barely in GOP hands or provide a small swing to Democrats. Only 8 out of the 34 Senate seats up for election in 2018 are GOP seats. It's not mathematically possible for the Democrats to get a supermajority in the Senate. This means Trump can simply veto any retaliatory legislation a Dem House+Senate might throw at him.

Time will tell. I can tell you one person Trump sure as (*)(*)(*)(*) won't listen to: Ronstar.

 

The more people on welfare the more poor you have. The only way to improve poverty numbers is to get your foot off the entrepreneurs neck. Government makes no one richer, government is an economic brake not the engine. This is why pure socialism begets poverty. Governments do not create wealth they destroy it.

 

Not relevant, that's not how it works.

A lot of presidents do, the tally counts.

So similar stories to other elections. Also, that's an acknowledgement he won.

Damn, if we followed rules of other nations, we could have something other than a democracy too.

Trump and Clinton played by the rules we use. He won by those rules. That's the exact mandate he needs.

 

Donald Trump’s Business Dealings Test a Constitutional Limit

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/politics/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest.html?_r=0

 

Trump has a very strong mandate, the economy. The Obama's approval rating always hovers around 50 to 55%, at least 20% lower than JFK and FDR, the American public by a larger margin feels the country is going in the wrong direction.

It is at a race or demographics that decided this election is geography. The three whitest states Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire went for Hillary.

- - - Updated - - -

And inconclusive article from the New York Slime means very little.

 

It is not true, in sanctuary cities, all people who has valid social security number and fill out application for ID or Driver License automatically registered to vote.
My sister in law has never filled out any special voter registration because she was not citizen, however she went to the polling place and asked for the voter bulletin. Surprisingly, her name was in the list so she successfully voted for president and for senate while being ineligible.
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/11/07/video-obama-encouraging-illegal-immigrants-vote/

 

Those "social programs" are made up of Social Security and Medicare.

Don't trust Republicans....they'd do away with or destroy them obviously.

And anyone who trusts Republicans with econmics has a very short memory and ability to read history.

 

When you were a child, you didn't like to share your toys, did you?

 

Sharing has nothing to do with it, reality does. High taxes leftist soak the rich schemes only hurt working people because the rich do tax avoidance to preserve wealth rather than trying to create more wealth because new wealth gets taxed away and when you make wealth creation unprofitable you impoverish people. It's real simple.

For what it's worth I'm not rich and I've never been rich. I've spent a lot of time spending my own time talent and treasure such as I have left after charitable donations and taxes trying to understand how this reality works. Economic reality is fairly simple. Everyone prospers when anyone prospers unless the government does something stupid and most governments have been engaged in doing stupid for some time now. Britain was the richest most prosperous country on earth at the time of the Napoleonic wars. This was true because they were, as Napoleon put it, a nation of shop keepers. It wasn't because of government tax policy, or because the Brits sat on a gold mine or had a huge bureaucracy, in fact, considering the size of the British Empire, their bureaucracy was comparatively tiny. Now the bureaucracies are huge their impact on people's day to day lives all but unmeasurable as compared to even fifty years ago. Britain has maybe a 20 ship navy and is stretched thin to afford even. An Army that at the height of WWI number nearly a hundred divisions today fields the equivalent three. The difference the bureaucracy eats up all the money.

 

Corporate exploitation is enabled by its sponsorship of government corruption and forcing its own political agendas upon us. If exploitation was effectively controlled, entitlement spending would be substantially reduced. We don't need to limit government; we need to monitor it closely and force it to meet our expectations.

As for increasing corporate capital by reducing taxes, are you naïve enough to believe that the main effect of this would NOT be to increase corporate bonuses and shareholder dividends, thereby increasing financial inequality?

 

Well said. Let's ask our leftists about that. Hey leftists, how's all that, "Hope and Change!" working out for you?

 

The same message resonated with those who voted for Obama last time but voted for Trump this time. Obama let them down.

 

Hell, Obama drop kicked voters.

 

Please, modern corporate America was built by progressives in the 30's under the national recovery act. The mega corp in this era are the dems chew toys. Your average CEO of a major corporate is little more than a government functionary that serves at their convenience and whose primary job is to try to make 1000's of rules and regulations spun off from every level of government function in some sort of coherent order.

 

WOW...what an amazing pile of feces.

You'd think there was never a huge corporation until 1932.

Of course that's complete nonsense but...

 

Wow what an amazing pile of ignorance. Since the Democrats took power in 1932, we have gone from forty odd car companies to three, at least one of which would go out of business tomorrow were it's products not heavily subsidized by the government, Similar reductions/mergers have happened in other industries all while the Democrats routinely ignored dozens of pages of anti trust regulations and laws, while pretending that none of it really impact competition. Why because of you are going to try to run the country it is easier to deal with a few dinosaurs rather than an equal weight of kittens. Corporations existed before we even became a nation many have been wholly or partly funded by Various governments, the British East India Company being the classic example. But even BEC would be Dwarfed by GM or Ford both of whom in there current incarnation (no pun intended) were created under the auspices of the National Recovery act.

 

Will the Midwest Stay Republican? The Democrats should probably spend the next four years calling midwesterners ignorant racists to make sure that doesn’t happen.

http://polipundit.com/?p=49615

 

He has a mandate just like obama had.

If your claim was true democrats would have won back congress, and they werent even close.