|
Post by Angelo on Dec 11, 2016 17:17:49 GMT -5
People think the criticism Trump is getting for his appointments is warranted? Especially his probable secretary if state? EPA? Etc. Warranted yes, but I think they are criticizing for the wrong reasons. A lot of people are pissed he's not draining the swamp, understandable, however as Tony and others have pointed out you do need some of those people to make things work. What they should be criticizing are the people themselves in relation to the positions rather than through a political us-v-them lens. A great example is his predicted picks for Interior and Sec of State. For Interior you have someone who literally wants to get rid of all public land (even though they have one of the highest rates of economic return). Sec of State has no experience or skillsets for the position at all. Then lets see, we have in Health a political operative rather than someone who really understands healthcare. For Housing we have an insane person with no experience for the job. At education you have a person who has no interest in attempting to fix the public school system, or even improving education in general. etc etc etc... Really the only pick that makes sense for the office so far is Mattis (though rumour is they'll only give Mattis his exemption if Trump drops Session's nomination). And I really think Trump should say fuck you to the GOP, drop Price and put Samuel Broder in at Health. It'll make the Regan lovers happy and put in someone who is very well designed for the office. Giuliani got fucked. He campaigned hard for Trump He's going senile, probably not safe to have him in a position of tangible power.
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Dec 11, 2016 17:28:06 GMT -5
People think the criticism Trump is getting for his appointments is warranted? Especially his probable secretary if state? EPA? Etc. Warranted yes, but I think they are criticizing for the wrong reasons. A lot of people are pissed he's not draining the swamp, understandable, however as Tony and others have pointed out you do need some of those people to make things work. What they should be criticizing are the people themselves in relation to the positions rather than through a political us-v-them lens. A great example is his predicted picks for Interior and Sec of State. For Interior you have someone who literally wants to get rid of all public land (even though they have one of the highest rates of economic return). Sec of State has no experience or skillsets for the position at all. Then lets see, we have in Health a political operative rather than someone who really understands healthcare. For Housing we have an insane person with no experience for the job. At education you have a person who has no interest in attempting to fix the public school system, or even improving education in general. etc etc etc... Really the only pick that makes sense for the office so far is Mattis (though rumour is they'll only give Mattis his exemption if Trump drops Session's nomination). And I really think Trump should say fuck you to the GOP, drop Price and put Samuel Broder in at Health. It'll make the Regan lovers happy and put in someone who is very well designed for the office. Giuliani got fucked. He campaigned hard for Trump He's going senile, probably not safe to have him in a position of tangible power. Lol. I don't know about senile, but I have definitely noticed him making more and more "out there " comments the last couple of years. I lived in NY when he was mayor. People hated him. He was such a bully. My school was about a block from city hall. There were almost daily protest against him. He cleaned up Times square and that was a good thing. But his style was bully like. His way or the highway. Then 9/11 happened and he did a good job keeping the city together after the tragedy. The city needed a strong leader at that time and he took on that role. Then suddenly he was the best mayor ever. If 9/11 wouldn't had happened, Giuliani would had gone down as one of the most hated mayors in the city's history.
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Dec 11, 2016 17:31:50 GMT -5
People think the criticism Trump is getting for his appointments is warranted? Especially his probable secretary if state? EPA? Etc. It's becoming a "boy who cried wolf" situation. No matter what Trump does, the democrats are always against it. It's almost like by decree.....criticize everything he does. So people are starting to not care. Even when they have a valid critique, people are looking at it as them just bitching again...
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 11, 2016 18:59:26 GMT -5
Warranted yes, but I think they are criticizing for the wrong reasons. A lot of people are pissed he's not draining the swamp, understandable, however as Tony and others have pointed out you do need some of those people to make things work. What they should be criticizing are the people themselves in relation to the positions rather than through a political us-v-them lens. A great example is his predicted picks for Interior and Sec of State. For Interior you have someone who literally wants to get rid of all public land (even though they have one of the highest rates of economic return). Sec of State has no experience or skillsets for the position at all. Then lets see, we have in Health a political operative rather than someone who really understands healthcare. For Housing we have an insane person with no experience for the job. At education you have a person who has no interest in attempting to fix the public school system, or even improving education in general. etc etc etc... Really the only pick that makes sense for the office so far is Mattis (though rumour is they'll only give Mattis his exemption if Trump drops Session's nomination). And I really think Trump should say fuck you to the GOP, drop Price and put Samuel Broder in at Health. It'll make the Regan lovers happy and put in someone who is very well designed for the office. He's going senile, probably not safe to have him in a position of tangible power. Lol. I don't know about senile, but I have definitely noticed him making more and more "out there " comments the last couple of years. I lived in NY when he was mayor. People hated him. He was such a bully. My school was about a block from city hall. There were almost daily protest against him. He cleaned up Times square and that was a good thing. But his style was bully like. His way or the highway. Then 9/11 happened and he did a good job keeping the city together after the tragedy. The city needed a strong leader at that time and he took on that role. Then suddenly he was the best mayor ever. If 9/11 wouldn't had happened, Giuliani would had gone down as one of the most hated mayors in the city's history. Well the bullying aspect came about because of his work, he had to be a bully to literally survive the time he was the federal prosecutor with everything going on. He has his issues, but I really think he'd fit in somewhere managing a bunch of litigators.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 11, 2016 22:28:58 GMT -5
Must say I'm pretty luke warm on most of these appointments. Was expecting a much more dramatic departure from the swamp we're supposed to be draining.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 11, 2016 23:12:37 GMT -5
Must say I'm pretty luke warm on most of these appointments. Was expecting a much more dramatic departure from the swamp we're supposed to be draining. EXACTLY! Trump wasn't tied to the DNC or the RNC/GOP. He could bring up anyone he wanted to, and instead he goes towards RNC politicians looking for future offices rather who is best for the job? Very disappointing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 1:03:41 GMT -5
Really? Steve Bannon, 4 Generals, Exxon guy to be SOS, Ben Carson, Tom Price hates the ACA, Homeland Security is a closed border/pro Guantanimo guy.
Not saying I am on board with all of them, but this cabinet looks nothing like anyone has seen in our lifetime.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 12, 2016 1:09:59 GMT -5
Really? Steve Bannon, 4 Generals, Exxon guy to be SOS, Ben Carson, Tom Price hates the ACA, Homeland Security is a closed border/pro Guantanimo guy. Not saying I am on board with all of them, but this cabinet looks nothing like anyone has seen in our lifetime. Actually it looks like everyone we have seen in our lifetime. Except Sec of State, which makes no fucking sense whatsoever outside of corruption
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 12, 2016 2:59:23 GMT -5
Really? Steve Bannon, 4 Generals, Exxon guy to be SOS, Ben Carson, Tom Price hates the ACA, Homeland Security is a closed border/pro Guantanimo guy. Not saying I am on board with all of them, but this cabinet looks nothing like anyone has seen in our lifetime. I didn't say I hated it, or that there wasn't aggressive in some good places/ways . . . I said I was "luke warm" because there's a lingering stench of GOP establishment that I was hoping would be gone, particularly after how divisive his nomination was. Was hoping for more of a hard break. I do think some good things are going to come out of this. Some push backs that are vital, frankly. Don't know enough about the Exxon guy. Thought the McMahon move was ballsy. Education move was ballsy. Interested to see how those pan out. The ACA will face a serious attack and repeal/replace seems likely. Not sure what the procedure will be and expect some serious push-back, but it's unpopular and expensive and was never really organized or presented well. Kind of a lazy operation if you really think about it. If a safe and effective replacement can be managed then let's see it. And do it right this time. Be up front. Be transparent. Make the argument, not the hustle. The tax code simplifications sound solid and desperately need to happen. The absurd complexity of the current code is embarrassing. The excess of military brass is mildly concerning. Trump made global disengagement a theme of his campaign. Frankly, it's one of the strongest arguments for him over Hitlary in a purely moral sense. So why is his cabinet balls-deep with 4-star retireds with bad mustaches and worse hair cuts? What I'm not seeing is some of the socially liberal agenda points having any seat at the table. Where is us backing off on the drug war, non-violent incarceration (we have highest rates in the world)? My other pet issue is that I'd like to see a "Russian Reset" with the whistleblower community. If you're a govt agent and you expose corruption, waste, fraud, or abuse, you are thanked for your honesty and bravery and appropriate changes are made to the operation in question. The Obama crackdown on dispensaries and whistleblowers was one of the worst omens for transparency we've seen in some time. How do you imagine Hitlary would treat whistleblowers in her administration? Trump will have to fuck up pretty bad, repeatedly, and even dangerously to outweigh what Hitlary would have done. Hitlary is a soul-less, power-mad, conniving sociopath with a corruption and cover-up rap sheet stretching back 35 fucking years, but "bigotry" and "fake news" are the problem? Bro, grab a mirror. Have a look. It ain't bigotry. It's your shitty candidate and your smug hipster-marxist culture. Own it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 8:07:39 GMT -5
I think the McMahon move was stupid. First, how much did she really do with making the WWE what it is? Most would say Vince was the driving force but now she gets to ride his coat tails as a qualification? Second, Trump has been on a WWE PPV and the McMahons contributed quite a bit to his campaign (so I heard, don't quote me). If Hillary appointed a friend, everybody would have a shit fit. It just isn't a good pick and looks like he is giving out favors. It may not be true but it don't look good.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 8:14:17 GMT -5
Pruitt was also a poor pick for the EPA. I mean the guy has obvious ties to the coal and oil industry while in multiple lawsuits against them. Again, this just seems like he isn't thinking things through. The guy doesn't have to be a tree hugging hippy or a strict adherent to climate change but his obvious conflict here should have made Donald rethink this appointment.
The guy drained the swamp only to fill it with the cousin species of the predators thay were already there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 10:32:40 GMT -5
Really? Steve Bannon, 4 Generals, Exxon guy to be SOS, Ben Carson, Tom Price hates the ACA, Homeland Security is a closed border/pro Guantanimo guy. Not saying I am on board with all of them, but this cabinet looks nothing like anyone has seen in our lifetime. I didn't say I hated it, or that there wasn't aggressive in some good places/ways . . . I said I was "luke warm" because there's a lingering stench of GOP establishment that I was hoping would be gone, particularly after how divisive his nomination was. Was hoping for more of a hard break. I do think some good things are going to come out of this. Some push backs that are vital, frankly. Don't know enough about the Exxon guy. Thought the McMahon move was ballsy. Education move was ballsy. Interested to see how those pan out. The ACA will face a serious attack and repeal/replace seems likely. Not sure what the procedure will be and expect some serious push-back, but it's unpopular and expensive and was never really organized or presented well. Kind of a lazy operation if you really think about it. If a safe and effective replacement can be managed then let's see it. And do it right this time. Be up front. Be transparent. Make the argument, not the hustle. The tax code simplifications sound solid and desperately need to happen. The absurd complexity of the current code is embarrassing. The excess of military brass is mildly concerning. Trump made global disengagement a theme of his campaign. Frankly, it's one of the strongest arguments for him over Hitlary in a purely moral sense. So why is his cabinet balls-deep with 4-star retireds with bad mustaches and worse hair cuts? What I'm not seeing is some of the socially liberal agenda points having any seat at the table. Where is us backing off on the drug war, non-violent incarceration (we have highest rates in the world)? My other pet issue is that I'd like to see a "Russian Reset" with the whistleblower community. If you're a govt agent and you expose corruption, waste, fraud, or abuse, you are thanked for your honesty and bravery and appropriate changes are made to the operation in question. The Obama crackdown on dispensaries and whistleblowers was one of the worst omens for transparency we've seen in some time. How do you imagine Hitlary would treat whistleblowers in her administration? Trump will have to fuck up pretty bad, repeatedly, and even dangerously to outweigh what Hitlary would have done. Hitlary is a soul-less, power-mad, conniving sociopath with a corruption and cover-up rap sheet stretching back 35 fucking years, but "bigotry" and "fake news" are the problem? Bro, grab a mirror. Have a look. It ain't bigotry. It's your shitty candidate and your smug hipster-marxist culture. Own it. It just seems to me like the majority of the appointments are fairly hard line on Trumps policies. I always assumed there would have to be some career politicians to balance things out and have connections to the networks in DC. I am slightly optimistic that he is setting up his cabinet with a very direct focus on border closing, ACA replacement, and international trade re-negotiation. It seems to me like this is how he is doing it... but until he actually gets shit done, I am not convinced.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 10:34:27 GMT -5
Pruitt was also a poor pick for the EPA. I mean the guy has obvious ties to the coal and oil industry while in multiple lawsuits against them. Again, this just seems like he isn't thinking things through. The guy doesn't have to be a tree hugging hippy or a strict adherent to climate change but his obvious conflict here should have made Donald rethink this appointment. The guy drained the swamp only to fill it with the cousin species of the predators thay were already there. What conflict are you referring to? Trump has always stated he doesn't believe the theories about climate change or humans impact. He ran on the concept of pro coal, pro drilling, and not allowing the EPA to handcuff industry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 12:22:55 GMT -5
Pruitt was also a poor pick for the EPA. I mean the guy has obvious ties to the coal and oil industry while in multiple lawsuits against them. Again, this just seems like he isn't thinking things through. The guy doesn't have to be a tree hugging hippy or a strict adherent to climate change but his obvious conflict here should have made Donald rethink this appointment. The guy drained the swamp only to fill it with the cousin species of the predators thay were already there. What conflict are you referring to? Trump has always stated he doesn't believe the theories about climate change or humans impact. He ran on the concept of pro coal, pro drilling, and not allowing the EPA to handcuff industry. Giving the reigns of the ENVIRONMENTAL Protection Agency to a dude that has been in multiple conflicts with them over oil and gas. That is like me suing someone over vaccines being unsafe and then being appointed to oversee the agency that decides how and if vaccines should be given. It doesnt make sense, even if the person appointing me didn't belive vaccines were effectivr, it is still a conflict.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 12:39:05 GMT -5
I'd prefer to see someone with some very tight reigns when it comes to the enviroment. I get that we don't quite know what kind of harm we are doing, but I'd rather error on the side of caution.
Id prefer someone that wasn't a climate change denier but isn't a tree hugger either. Someone with an solid background and an open and reasonable mind. Middle of the spectrum with open minded movement in either way depending on the scenario.
While I feel that shouldn't be too much to ask for, seems like those middle of the road people are hard to come by at this level of politics?
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 12, 2016 13:29:09 GMT -5
I'd prefer to see someone with some very tight reigns when it comes to the enviroment. I get that we don't quite know what kind of harm we are doing, but I'd rather error on the side of caution. Id prefer someone that wasn't a climate change denier but isn't a tree hugger either. Someone with an solid background and an open and reasonable mind. Middle of the spectrum with open minded movement in either way depending on the scenario. While I feel that shouldn't be too much to ask for, seems like those middle of the road people are hard to come by at this level of politics? THIS!! There is abject lunacy on both sides of the aisle regarding climate change. On the left, you've got militant activist nutjobs who want to gut whole segments of the economy and ride off into the sunset in solar cars that don't exist. On the right you've got ignoramus evangelicals who don't believe in evolution, let alone the prospect that 7 billion people driving cars and running factories might have some environmental impact. Where are the people in the middle? Are there any? Can you name one?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 12, 2016 15:56:16 GMT -5
I'd prefer to see someone with some very tight reigns when it comes to the enviroment. I get that we don't quite know what kind of harm we are doing, but I'd rather error on the side of caution. Id prefer someone that wasn't a climate change denier but isn't a tree hugger either. Someone with an solid background and an open and reasonable mind. Middle of the spectrum with open minded movement in either way depending on the scenario. While I feel that shouldn't be too much to ask for, seems like those middle of the road people are hard to come by at this level of politics? THIS!! There is abject lunacy on both sides of the aisle regarding climate change. On the left, you've got militant activist nutjobs who want to gut whole segments of the economy and ride off into the sunset in solar cars that don't exist. On the right you've got ignoramus evangelicals who don't believe in evolution, let alone the prospect that 7 billion people driving cars and running factories might have some environmental impact. Where are the people in the middle? Are there any? Can you name one? Hugh Mungus. I accept anthropomorphic climate change is a real treat to our stability bUT only to the point to raise awareness and have smart people in the private sector find solutions, not mandated solutions that will have little impact on our carbon footprint.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 12, 2016 16:24:39 GMT -5
THIS!! There is abject lunacy on both sides of the aisle regarding climate change. On the left, you've got militant activist nutjobs who want to gut whole segments of the economy and ride off into the sunset in solar cars that don't exist. On the right you've got ignoramus evangelicals who don't believe in evolution, let alone the prospect that 7 billion people driving cars and running factories might have some environmental impact. Where are the people in the middle? Are there any? Can you name one? Hugh Mungus. I accept anthropomorphic climate change is a real treat to our stability bUT only to the point to raise awareness and have smart people in the private sector find solutions, not mandated solutions that will have little impact on our carbon footprint. Looks like we may have found a middle grounder already.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 14, 2016 17:07:41 GMT -5
I'm not saying all these are good appointments, but at least they are putting people into the spots they are qualified for.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 14, 2016 20:25:45 GMT -5
So which person is the visually impaired paralympian?
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 14, 2016 22:16:59 GMT -5
Yeah, yeah, and the minister of how to screw in a light bulb once stayed at a holiday inn.
|
|
|
Post by Premier on Dec 14, 2016 22:44:29 GMT -5
I think so far, all the people named are a compromise between draining the swamp and having some people that know their way around Washington.
They are going to need some old politicians in there to "show them around ".
It's like joining this old company full of red tape, gossip, with a massive "buddy system " in place. You need those old timers to show you the ropes. Who's ass to kiss, who to avoid, etc.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 14, 2016 23:16:05 GMT -5
I think so far, all the people named are a compromise between draining the swamp and having some people that know their way around Washington. They are going to need some old politicians in there to "show them around ". It's like joining this old company full of red tape, gossip, with a massive "buddy system " in place. You need those old timers to show you the ropes. Who's ass to kiss, who to avoid, etc. And this is the issue though, that it has that buddy system in place. Hell there are people who know how it works who are better experienced for each damned position (except maybe Mattis). So far each alleged nominations isn't someone anyone who cares about this country should have in the top 10 regardless of politics.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Abortion on Dec 15, 2016 1:49:15 GMT -5
I'm not saying all these are good appointments, but at least they are putting people into the spots they are qualified for. I think they just pick folks based on the color of their skin or to fill a certain "diversity" quota. The diversity meme has to end. That's why governments suck. You can't just pick the best white man for the job. The office better look like a Budweiser commercial or someone will cry. So instead of the Minister of Health being the best (almost definitely white male) doctor, you get some guy in a turban because it makes someone look good. If the best person for the job is the turban, cool but no one is selected that way. It's just, "Get us a woman, get us a brown woman, get us a Moose-A-Lim, get us a gay brown woman Moose-A-Lim... Got your vote yet, cuck?" and that's pretty much the process. I don't know why certain groups of people need to be represented in these positions or how that helps anybody. If someone is the best, put them in. I'm so tired of seeing every single government cabinet looking this way. You can tell they strategically picked these people by gender and race to represent certain groups of people even though that completely undermines the idea an effective system. Even that #Oscarssowhite shit... So... uh... to not be racist we have to force in people of a certain skin color regardless of actual achievement. This social justice stuff just needs to stop. You tell the people that they're racist if people of certain races aren't forcefully represented regardless of qualification and the commie, brainwashed masses just eat that up even though it defies all logic.
|
|
|
Post by Angelo on Dec 15, 2016 2:00:57 GMT -5
I think they just pick folks based on the color of their skin or to fill a certain "diversity" quota. The diversity meme has to end. That's why governments suck. You can't just pick the best white man for the job. The office better look like a Budweiser commercial or someone will cry. So instead of the Minister of Health being the best (almost definitely white male) doctor, you get some guy in a turban because it makes someone look good. If the best person for the job is the turban, cool but no one is selected that way. It's just, "Get us a woman, get us a brown woman, get us a Moose-A-Lim, get us a gay brown woman Moose-A-Lim... Got your vote yet, cuck?" and that's pretty much the process. I don't know why certain groups of people need to be represented in these positions or how that helps anybody. If someone is the best, put them in. I'm so tired of seeing every single government cabinet looking this way. You can tell they strategically picked these people by gender and race to represent certain groups of people even though that completely undermines the idea an effective system. Even that #Oscarssowhite shit... So... uh... to not be racist we have to force in people of a certain skin color regardless of actual achievement. This social justice stuff just needs to stop. You tell the people that they're racist if people of certain races aren't forcefully represented regardless of qualification and the commie, brainwashed masses just eat that up even though it defies all logic. That guy in the Turban, he's their minister of Defense, not Health
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 10:30:57 GMT -5
Seeing that guy makes me glad I don't live in canada.
|
|
|
Post by Canuklehead on Dec 15, 2016 10:53:38 GMT -5
I'm not saying all these are good appointments, but at least they are putting people into the spots they are qualified for. I think they just pick folks based on the color of their skin or to fill a certain "diversity" quota. The diversity meme has to end. That's why governments suck. You can't just pick the best white man for the job. The office better look like a Budweiser commercial or someone will cry. So instead of the Minister of Health being the best (almost definitely white male) doctor, you get some guy in a turban because it makes someone look good. If the best person for the job is the turban, cool but no one is selected that way. It's just, "Get us a woman, get us a brown woman, get us a Moose-A-Lim, get us a gay brown woman Moose-A-Lim... Got your vote yet, cuck?" and that's pretty much the process. I don't know why certain groups of people need to be represented in these positions or how that helps anybody. If someone is the best, put them in. I'm so tired of seeing every single government cabinet looking this way. You can tell they strategically picked these people by gender and race to represent certain groups of people even though that completely undermines the idea an effective system. Even that #Oscarssowhite shit... So... uh... to not be racist we have to force in people of a certain skin color regardless of actual achievement. This social justice stuff just needs to stop. You tell the people that they're racist if people of certain races aren't forcefully represented regardless of qualification and the commie, brainwashed masses just eat that up even though it defies all logic. Ding Ding Ding! Our PM is the king social justice warrior and a self professed feminist. A lot of the people in his cabinet are not even close to qualified for the positions they now hold but it makes for cool progressive memes so that's all that matters. That being said, Harjit Sajjan (guy in the photo Angelo posted) is a legit badass and a solid choice for Minister of Defence
|
|
|
Post by PatSox on Dec 15, 2016 11:01:03 GMT -5
Just jumping in to say I have special place in my heart for anyone who works the phrase "abject lunacy" in to a sentence
Well done, Baph
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 15, 2016 16:09:15 GMT -5
Just jumping in to say I have special place in my heart for anyone who works the phrase "abject lunacy" in to a sentence Well done, Baph Stop sucking up to Baph.
You're not on his side, and not in his league.
LOL.
|
|
|
Post by Baph on Dec 16, 2016 0:37:47 GMT -5
Lowest voter turnout in 16 years, and lowest voter participation for top of ticket in 12 years. Truth is, a FUCK ton of people who voted for Obama didn't turn out for Hitlary. You can site Russian phantom hackers, invisible bigotry, or fake news, but at the end of the day, you need to explain why MILLIONS of people who voted for a mixed race marxist 4 years ago suddenly got super racist and sexist in 2016 an decided not to turn out for the b-team of the Clinton Crime duo. reason.com/blog/2016/12/14/close-to-two-million-actual-voters-ignormore than 1.7 million people in the 33 states we sampled went out and cast ballots where they did not select any presidential candidate at all. Not only did they ignore Trump and Clinton, they also waved away Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein. This works out to two percent of the total number of votes. More people cast their vote for no president at all than voted for Stein.
|
|