Sean Spicer resigns as White House press secretary

EMBATTLED White House press secretary Sean Spicer has resigned over the hiring of a new communications director.

Mr Spicer reportedly “vehemently disagreed” with US Fake President Trump offering New York financier Anthony Scaramucci the role of communications director.

He told Fox News’ Sean Hannity that the White House’s commuincations department had “too many cooks in the kitchen”.

I just thought it was in the best interest of our communications department, of our press organisation, to not have too many cooks in the kitchen,” Spicer told Fox News’ Sean Hannity in an interview hours after he resigned from the White House.

More at http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/sean-spicer-resigns-as-white-house-press-secretary/news-story/0b4037460d1a4a23b3b179236eddb2b1

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

PMSL you really are embarrassing yourself now

I know, right?  He doesn't even know that Trump lost the popular vote.  But, tommy is tommy.  I'm much more surprised that Raggs is not caught up on this.

It's expected that Brits stay more in tune with British politics, but what with all the craziness going on in Washington in the past 6-months, you'd think they might hear something now and then.  We've had several threads on the electoral college, and how it usurps democracy in the US.  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I know, right?  He doesn't even know that Trump lost the popular vote.  But, tommy is tommy.  I'm much more surprised that Raggs is not caught up on this.

It's expected that Brits stay more in tune with British politics, but what with all the craziness going on in Washington in the past 6-months, you'd think they might hear something now and then.  We've had several threads on the electoral college, and how it usurps democracy in the US.  

I know that Trump lost the popular vote overall and still won the election, but that's because of the way your system is set up. You specifically claimed that the electoral college voted against the majority vote in three areas, and that's just not true. You need to read posts properly and understand what people are saying.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I know that Trump lost the popular vote overall and still won the election, but that's because of the way your system is set up. You specifically claimed that the electoral college voted against the majority vote in three areas, and that's just not true. You need to read posts properly and understand what people are saying.

If the electoral college didn't vote against the will of the people, how did Trump win despite losing by 3-million votes to Clinton?

You claim of the areas I chose, it's "not true".  Are you suggested that I chose the wrong states--Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania--wherein the shenanigans took place?    That's what the expert say, not me.  Personally...I haven't been to Wisconsin or Michigan for years, and while I've been in Pennsylvania several times, never in a computer room where they were counting votes.  I doubt you have been there either.  I have to rely on the experts, and so do you.  What evidence do you have to contradict the experts?

I think you use gibberish and nonsense ("... read posts properly and understand what people are saying.") to weasel out of the pekills you get yourself into.  You are just plain wrong, and your ego can't admit it.  

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

If the electoral college didn't vote against the will of the people, how did Trump win despite losing by 3-million votes to Clinton?

You claim of the areas I chose, it's "not true".  Are you suggested that I chose the wrong states--Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania--wherein the shenanigans took place?    That's what the expert say, not me.  Personally...I haven't been to Wisconsin or Michigan for years, and while I've been in Pennsylvania several times, never in a computer room where they were counting votes.  I doubt you have been there either.  I have to rely on the experts, and so do you.  What evidence do you have to contradict the experts?

I think you use gibberish and nonsense ("... read posts properly and understand what people are saying.") to weasel out of the pekills you get yourself into.  You are just plain wrong, and your ego can't admit it.  

The figures you posted yourself speak for themselves. Trump won the popular vote in those areas, so the electoral college did not vote contrary to the popular vote. You're the one talking gibberish because you specifically said that the electoral college did vote against the popular vote in those areas. Why don't you just admit you got it wrong instead of abusing me?

You need to do some research as to how it happened, but it wasn't because of the electoral college. It's not that difficult to understand.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The figures you posted yourself speak for themselves. Trump won the popular vote in those areas, so the electoral college did not vote contrary to the popular vote. You're the one talking gibberish because you specifically said that the electoral college did vote against the popular vote in those areas. Why don't you just admit you got it wrong instead of abusing me?

You need to do some research as to how it happened, but it wasn't because of the electoral college. It's not that difficult to understand.

Soz...you just don't understand American politics, nor do you know the history and effect of the electoral college.  Trump was outvoted by Clinton by nearly 3-million votes, 10-million if you count all opposition votes, Bernie Sanders included.

Thus, the original point: the US is not a democracy.

Raggamuffin wrote:Candidate A wins 51 votes from the first two states, but only 20 votes from the third one. He has won the election because he won in two states out of three, but he didn't win the total popular vote. OK?

NPR wrote:The most egregious fault in the system is the prospect of a nationwide popular vote winner actually losing in the Electoral College. It has happened [multiple] times, most recently in 2000 [and has happened again in the 2016 election] when Al Gore got 48.4 percent of the popular vote to 47.9 percent for George W. Bush (a margin of about 500,000 votes). After a struggle over the count in one state (Florida) that went all the way to the Supreme Court, Bush was declared the winner with 271 votes in the Electoral College — one more than the minimum for a majority.

It must also be said that the system of 50 separate elections encourages candidates to concentrate their campaign time and resources on a handful of so-called battleground states. These are generally medium to large states where neither party has an overwhelming advantage. That means some mega-states (California, Texas, New York, Illinois) are largely neglected, while a few others (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina) see more of the candidates and their surrogates than the rest of the country combined. Small states, those with electoral votes in single digits, are often left off the campaign itinerary altogether. This, despite the fact that each citizen's vote is supposed to be worth as much as any other's.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:Candidate A wins 51 votes from the first two states, but only 20 votes from the third one. He has won the election because he won in two states out of three, but he didn't win the total popular vote. OK?

That's arithmetic politics.  But that is not the way the electoral college works.  NPR uses the 2000 election to illustrate:

NPR wrote:The most egregious fault in the system is the prospect of a nationwide popular vote winner actually losing in the Electoral College. It has happened [multiple] times, most recently in 2000 when Al Gore got 48.4 percent of the popular vote to 47.9 percent for George W. Bush (a margin of about 500,000 votes). After a struggle over the count in one state (Florida) that went all the way to the Supreme Court, Bush was declared the winner with 271 votes in the Electoral College — one more than the minimum for a majority.

It must also be said that the system of 50 separate elections encourages candidates to concentrate their campaign time and resources on a handful of so-called battleground states. These are generally medium to large states where neither party has an overwhelming advantage. That means some mega-states (California, Texas, New York, Illinois) are largely neglected, while a few others (Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio and North Carolina) see more of the candidates and their surrogates than the rest of the country combined. Small states, those with electoral votes in single digits, are often left off the campaign itinerary altogether. This, despite the fact that each citizen's vote is supposed to be worth as much as any other's.

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/06/500660424/how-the-electoral-college-works-and-why-you-don-t-want-to-think-about-it

When each state certifies a winner of its overall popular vote, that winner is entitled to send all his or her electors to that state's Capitol, where they will officially record their votes for their candidate.

In these proceedings in the states, the winner of the statewide popular vote generally takes all the Electoral College votes, a rule stretching back to 1824.

Original Quill wrote:

Thorin wrote:

PMSL you really are embarrassing yourself now

I know, right?  He doesn't even know that Trump lost the popular vote.  But, tommy is tommy.  I'm much more surprised that Raggs is not caught up on this.

It's expected that Brits stay more in tune with British politics, but what with all the craziness going on in Washington in the past 6-months, you'd think they might hear something now and then.  We've had several threads on the electoral college, and how it usurps democracy in the US.