Denying Donald

Yes, the title has three meanings.

The first was inspired by all the denials of the Trumpistas of facts, like the size of the Women's March vs. the size of the Inaugural crowd.

The second is a play on Trump's still ranting about "Lying Hilary”.

The third is that we should do all we can to deny the legitimacy of Trump's election.

For more on comparison of the crowds at Trumps inauguration and the Women’s March, see https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/us/politics/president-trump-inauguration-crowd-white-house.html

Denying Donald said that the rain stopped as soon as he started speaking.  According to the NYT the rain continued throughout Trump's speech.  Could this be a message from God expressing disapproval of Trump as President?

Not really, if Clinton had won, she would have had the same weather.  “Conservative” “Christians” would have been certain the rain meant God’s disapproval of her.  Liberal Christians would say “The rain falls on the just and unjust alike."

Remember the perspective, Trump came in third to a de facto "None of the Above”. One would think he would have a bit of humility.  Too many people liked Trump even less than Clinton and stayed away, thus giving the election to Trump.

"The voters" decided for Clinton. The Electoral College decided for Trump

The above two lines are my comment to “Thoughts for the Horrified”, Paul Krugman, New York Times, 2016-11-11,
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/thoughts-for-the-horrified.html?comments#permid=20443404:20445015.

Consider that an extra 50,000 votes total in just three states would have given Clinton the election.

See "For Reeling Democrats, Now What?", Cathleen Decker, Los Angeles Times, 2016-11-10,
http://www.latimes.com/nation/ct-for-democrats-now-what-20161110-story.html

Were you one of these 50,000 non-voters?  Did you steal the election?  Did you help rig the election?

In the next election, remember that

The only way
You throw your vote away
Is to stay away

Also remember that if don’t vote, you will probably get the candidate you like the least.

However, there is hope for a run-around for the Electoral College.  According to the U.S. Constitution, each state gets to decide how to choose its electors.  In the beginning, it was the state legislatures.

Now there is a run-around to the Electoral College in that states will select their electors based on the national vote.  See “National Popular Vote Interstate Compact”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact.

"The People" decided what?

In a presidential election year, when a president is selected by the number of electoral votes, many of those who supported the successful candidate say, "The people decided…"

Wait a minute!  Electoral votes do not always coincide with actual votes.  A candidate may win based on electoral votes, but not have gained a majority, or even a plurality of the actual votes.  The people who voted for the other candidate are not "people"?

In a presidential election year, the party of the winning presidential candidate generally gets majorities in both the House and the Senate.  But the other party always gets a large number of votes.  The people who voted for the other party are not "people"?

Then two years later, supporters of the party that was less successful start saying the President and members of Congress are not listening to "the people".  But the President and Congress are listening to "the people" that elected them.

Unfortunately, too often more people didn't bother to vote than voted for either candidate in far too many races.  Does this mean "the people" don't give a damn about either party?

It would be great if "people" would use more precise words in their discussions and writings, but it ain't going to happen.  "People" want to use imprecise words so that they can prevent both their supporters and the opposition from thinking clearly.