>Let's start with the mandate question. As of earlier this week, Trump was losing the popular vote by 1.7%. (53.5% of those who voted voted for someone else.) In fact, he has a lower percent of the popular vote than all but 7 previous winners. That's certainly not a mandate. (Here's my link for that data: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/28/donald-trumps-political-mandate-is-historically-small/?utm_term=.5d5ab7411326)
>
>As for the electoral college, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2016/nov/21/reince-priebus/despite-losing-popular-vote-donald-trump-won-elect/.
>
>They say that a picture is worth a thousand words, so please allow me to show you one:
>
>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters
>
>So you believe that the voting results in 20 states should determine what the entire country does? Does this mean that the 30 other states (the majority) do not matter? Certainly does not sound very democratic....


As you well know, the picture is misleading. Most of those big red states are sparsely populated. This site has some good maps that take population into account: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/. I'll link a couple directly.

Here's one that shows results by state, adjusting for population:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/statepop1024.png

Here's one that shows results by county, adjusting for population:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2016/countycartrb512.png

There's more there, if you're interested in reality.

As for 20 states vs. 30, if it's the sheer number that you're looking at, then you're also saying that when evaluating results from, say, New York state, the counties in and around NY city that are densely populated should count for the same as the counties upstate that are sparsely populated. That's certainly not democracy.

IAC, as I said, I wasn't suggesting that the results should be overturned on this basis (though I actually think that it's time for the Electoral College to go, particularly if it fails to do its most important job this time and keep an unqualified demagogue out of the White House), but that calling the results a mandate is BS.

>I'll point out that Obama had larger victories both times and lots of folks denied that he had a mandate.
>
>So what does that have to do with anything? Enlighten me....

I haven't gone digging back, but I wouldn't be surprised if you were one of those people.


>Presidents should set up a blind trust, where they don't know what they own and thus can't make choices to benefit their own businesses.
>
>Oh. are you talking about the Clinton Foundation? Is this some kind of law? I really do not know. Or is this one more of your holier-than-thou decrees?
>

The Clinton Foundation has nothing to do with this. It was started after Bill's term in the White House. Besides that, the Clintons don't make any money from it. It's not a holding; it's a charitable foundation.

Setting up a blind trust isn't the law, but it is common practice. From http://www.forbes.com/sites/jenniferwang/2016/11/15/why-trump-wont-use-a-blind-trust-and-what-his-predecessors-did-with-their-assets/#782ff4e77915:

"For example, Bill Clinton used blind trusts while he was in office, as did George W. Bush. When Hillary Clinton launched her first presidential run in 2007, she went so far as to liquidating her blind trust to eliminate any investments that might create a problem down the road. Since then, she has kept the proceeds in bank accounts, treasury notes and mutual funds."

Some of Trump's holdings will put him in violation of the Constitution the minute he takes the oath of office because of Article I, Section 9 (the emoluments clause).

>But there's also the various calls with foreign leaders in which Trump apparently asked for favors for his businesses.There's also the event his new DC hotel held for foreign diplomats to encourage them to stay there and use the hotel for events.
>
>Was this before or after he became the president elect? Big difference. Before he became the president elect, he was just a business man...

After.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/business/capitalbusiness/2016/11/18/9da9c572-ad18-11e6-977a-1030f822fc35_story.html

"bout 100 foreign diplomats, from Brazil to Turkey, gathered at the Trump International Hotel this week to sip Trump-branded champagne, dine on sliders and hear a sales pitch about the U.S. president-elect’s newest hotel.

The event for the diplomatic community, held one week after the election, was in the Lincoln Library, a junior ballroom with 16-foot ceilings and velvet drapes that is also available for rent."



>I don't know about you, but I want a president to focus on what's best for the country, not what's best for his business empire, since those may not always coincide.
>
>I see no evidence that Trump is going to focus on his business empire. Actually, I see evidence to the contrary. He has already said that running the country is far more important than his business and will require his full attention. We have never had a president with the business holdings of Donald Trump, so we really do not know what must be done to avoid a conflict of interest. Excuse me. Apparently YOU know what must be done to avoid a conflict of interest. Perhaps you should call him and ask to be considered as one of his advisors...
>

FWIW, George W. Bush's ethics lawyer is among those saying he needs to divest. Here he is on CNN:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kk_1yHC5Q0M#action=share

(Sorry for no a video rather than text. The sites I could find that had the actual text are among those I think you'd reject. Figured hearing the man say it himself would work for you.)


>Finally, on conservatism, if you look at the folks he's named so far, they're virtually all from the far right wing. Jeff Sessions, his AG choice is opposed to civil rights and voting rights; oh, and to the IDEA, the law that said kids with special needs are entitled to an appropriate education. Betsy DeVos, his choice for Secretary of Education, has spent decades trying to destroy public schools, which in my view, are one of the key institutions of American democracy. Tom Price, the choice for HHS, voted to overturn a Washington, DC law that prevented employers from firing a woman for using birth control. And every nominee who'd been appointed as of Wednesday and who has a record on the subject, opposed gay rights. (Link for that last: http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/11/so-far-every-member-of-trumps-cabinet-opposes-lgbt-rights.html)
>
>ROFL and LOL!!! I expect nothing less from you. You and Victor must be best friends. VBG
>
>HRC lost. She and you (and Victor) should accept that and get on with life. Isn't that what your hero Obama said? Elections have consequences? I am certain that you agreed with that sentiment when HE won the white house....

Yeah, but he had a landslide in both the popular vote and the Electoral College. Also, he wasn't threatening fundamental civil liberties like freedom of the press and the right to vote. Trump is.

Tamar

kk_1yHC5Q0M