My husband is so upset about the president elect. Anyone else have this problem?

Does anyone remember the movement to write in Alfred E. Newman's name as President? If I recall correctly, the more angry voters also wrote in Disney characters - Minnie or Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck.

That was a different way of protesting, not necessarily effective, but certainly nonviolent.

Moecam, except when they did go to vote.... but only voted for the items on the ballot underneath the candidates for President names. Thus didn't vote for anyone for the President. If I was faced with that, I would at least do a write in so I could say I voted for a President.... [sigh]

There was one State, I can't remember which, where 90,000 voters did the above, but no write in votes.

ff- 46% didn't vote so closer to: 1/4 happy, 1/4 not happy & 1/2 should be quiet because they didn't vote - I always say if you don't vote you can't complain about government until you do because by staying home you loose that right - even go & do a spoiled ballot gives you the right to speak because you went to the polling station

Rainmom, I like that idea of one vote equaling one vote nationwide, not within each State.

If the "popular vote" can be tabulated - which it obviously can - what's wrong with one vote equaling one vote? Maybe I'm being overly simplistic but just saying...

Amy - you forget that after Obama's election he was burned in effigy in several places around the country, a black church torched in Massachettes, and after his re-election Trump called for a revolution and for people to march on Washington.
With both House and Senate controlled by Republicans, and this their #1 priority, you can bet it will get done. All obstruction

FF, you are right and I am not going to panic and try and take a wait and see approach. The upside to this election is my mother will calm down lol

I feel the opposite regarding term limits, if a Congressperson or Senate is doing an outstanding job for their State, let the voters keep voting that person back into office. Senators such as John McCain 5 terms.... Dianne Feinstein 4 terms.... Mitch McConnell 6 terms... Susan Collins 4 terms... Barbara Mikulski 5 terms but is retiring at the end of her term at 80.... Orran Hatch 7 terms.

We currently have 8 U.S. Senators who are in their 80's, amazing. We currently have 17 U.S. Senators in their 70's, also amazing. And 38 U.S. Senators in their 60's. That means more than half of the U.S. Senate is 60 and older. There is 100 U.S. Senators, each serve 6 year terms.

What is tough is if term limits were set for the House of Representatives who are only in office 2 years before being re-elected. My gosh, it takes 2 years for someone new to learn how things are done, much less finding the bathrooms in the Capital and their own office buildings :P

I still do think very highly of Mr Obama, in spite of not necessarily appreciating his comments to us in the UK (I excused him because he was only trying to help his buddy Dave), and in spite of raising an eyebrow when he suddenly lost all interest in due process - not that I didn't think it was justified, only I'd thought he had better standards than that. I think if anything even more highly of Mrs Obama, whom I do not think I have ever heard utter a negative or unhelpful word..? Not that I can recall, anyway.

Amy, you make good points on the electoral college. I doubt though that any of them could foresee over a few hundred years into the future, into a world of technologically dominated communications and manipulated campaigns.

And I'll never forget the fact that in the late 60s and early 70s I was proud to be a part of the group that was trying to get the Equal Rights Amendment passed.

That was a MAJOR omission of the republic's conception and planning - as well as that we had to fight for the 19th Amendment just for the right to vote.

While there are some brilliant aspects to the inception planning of this country, there are also some sexist, disgusting absences - the two cited. which to me are the most blaringly unjust.

Amy, if you want to consider really sad, pathetic and disgusting examples of voters returning corrupt politicians to office, read up on Detroit and former mayor (not convict) Kwame Kilpatrick. I even recall hearing on local news in the last few months that a group was trying to raise money to support him (Gagging as I write this).

Jessie, I fully agree with you that votes should be based on population rather than the number of elected officials; I never understood the reasoning for that anyway. Seems to me as if it was, along with gerrymandering, created to pander to the elected so-called representatives, not the actual number of voters. As such, it's somewhat of a secondary representation.

AKDaughter, I would RELISH and CHERISH being ignored in elections!

Political candidate: PLEASE, PLEASE do that for Michigan! I am so sick of harassing political calls, junk political mail which never address issues but only how great a particular candidate is - most of them are like Phil the Groundhog, except they only appear in election years, opening their massive mouths and spewing rhetoric about their greatness.

Other than increased sales for certain segments of the cities they visit, I don't see any practical use for political visits - it's just more pandering to the electorate.

Our forefathers designed the electoral college to prevent large population areas from always winning and controlling the laws for everyone. If we did away with that, California, NY and Illinois will always determine who was president, just by overwhelming population.
Term limits: we need them. Our forefathers did not put term limits in the Bill of Rights or Constitution because they (wrongly) expected a person would serve his term and then return to his hometown and answer to and live with the people who voted for him. That, plus the fact that life expectancy was much shorter, health not as good. The originators would have been shocked by the number of career politicians in their 80's and 90's staggering into the capitals (state and federal) only to vote party line because they barely understood what was going on, or cared or were totally out of touch. I bet every one of us can name at least ten of them, past and present!
Interesting, in NY, there is a law that a Supreme Court judge MUST retire when he/she reaches the age of 70. Yet, there is no age limit law for any other elected position. Crazy laws in NY

eguillot, don't worry about ACA [Obamacare] being overturned. It takes an act of Congress to do that, and so far in the past few years Congress has been unable to overturn the ACA, not enough favorable votes, time and time again. And that's with a Republican Senate and a Republican House under President Obama.

With some Bills in the Senate, the Senate would need 60 yes votes for a Bill to win. Come 2017 are either 51 or 52 Republican seats, and 46 to 47 Democrat seats. With a 60 yes vote needed, that would mean 7 or 8 Democrats would need to vote "yes". But there are times with a few Republicans who don't vote party lines, thus vote "no".

There are still tea party Republicans who sit in Congress, and they were ready to go against the Grand Old Party [GOP]. I don't think they will change their tune having a Republican President.

It will be interesting to watch.

Jessie, that is exactly why the Electoral College was instituted. Without it, office seekers would only need to consider the voters in New York, California, Illinois and maybe a couple of other states. Those of us in the middle of the country would be ignored.

AmyGrace, I think you nailed it. People are fed up with the "insiders" and their corruption. One scandal after another. I supported the Libertarian ticket, but I am willing to sit back and see what happens. Good grief, the guy isn't even in office yet! I will wear my safety pin, even though I don't go out in public much, but I am certainly not thinking about leaving the country.

Gershun, I think Clinton didn't concede right away for two reasons: she was heart-broken and the race was very close. It is better to verify the results before conceding early. As it turns out, Clinton did take a few more popular votes than Trump, but we have to respect the electoral college. The college is being challenged now, but that won't have any effect on the current election results. I doubt that the electoral college will be changed unless it is done independently by the states -- going all one way or splitting their votes. I also think the electoral college should be based on population size alone and not the number of Congress people for the state. This keeps smaller states from having more weight than their population carries.

totally agree amygrace .
i think the issue with hillarys hidden emails doesnt occur to many people . she was running a fifth column of government and getting kickbacks from special interests and even foreign governments for doing so .
voting for a person because of their race or gender is pretty shallow . i voted for obama twice because i thought he was a visionary and a gentleman / statesman . as it turned out , he represented everything but my " white privileged " a** . its ok though . i never sobbed or rioted ..

Of course we are being played, by the media and by the political system. Which is one of the reasons people voted for a non politician who owes no one. Right or wrong, maybe he is not liked personally, but it was a message that voters are sick of career politicians whose main goal is to be re-elected or move up the ladder. All the candidates (on both sides were all part of the political elite of DC.) Needless to say, we need term limits and a law that prevents every politician and their family members to be a lobbyist for 10 years during and after serving! And we need to get rid of PACs because when they were approved, elections became meaner, more expensive and dirty. Individuals can give only a certain amount to the candidate, but as much as they want to a PAC who can give it to the candidate. What is wrong with that? (rhetorical question)
Career politicians feather their nests with lobbyist money and favors and pay for play in order to stay in office. I just read an article: in NY, 178 of the 179 state legislators were re-voted back into office - despite the horrible horrible proven crookedness of the NY State Govt. In 10 years we have been through 2 really bad scandalous governors (the present one is under investigation too - even as he was when he was Sect of HUD) And I will also throw in Pataki who preceded the last 3. He was a great governor the first term but by the third term he completely changed and started betraying the state. The speaker of the house was just convicted of taking bribes as have at least 1/2 dozen others. Everyone knew for years, yet he was re-elected for 30+ years, they all were. And, who is guilty here? The voters because they always do what they always do and they always get what they always get. Its human nature I guess

i dont see the issue with a president elect wanting to secure our borders and permit immigration based on merit and done legally .
im rather disturbed about certain groups in the usa choosing which laws they want to follow and which they dont .
a good example is black dirt bike and quad operators running amok gang style in some of our cities . the police wont apprehend and prosecute them because they dont want anyone to get hurt in the chase .
if i stick a quadrunner on the road it will likely be impounded .
im tired of criminals and scofflaws operating with impunity .
the female politicians and celebs snuffling and crying on tv right now is appalling . IMO , anyone that childish and overemotional shouldnt even be acknowleged with air time .

Or could Americans have just been duped into thinking there was a rift in the Rep party? I don't know what we're looking at anymore or maybe if we're just being played. The only thing the politicians ever seek from the people is their money and their votes.

Or it may actually be that Trump will be the one barring some of the more radical actions of the Congress. He was once a Democrat and is not liked by the Ryan camp. Who knows? We can only hope, since older Americans are very vulnerable right now.

Jessie, I was thinking of the old line Republicans, those who still have common sense and aren't brash like the Ryan and Trump types. I think it might come down to how many are experienced vs. how many are less seasoned.

My concern was that some with decades of experience might just decide it's time to retire.

Republicans in Congress stay with the party. You rarely if ever see a Republican vote straying to the other side of an issue. So what the party decides it wants, the Republican members of Congress will endorse.

Okay, a snippish remark. If Hollywood has taught us anything, it is that the country wants their women to be like Barbie dolls -- youthful, skinny, and beautiful. It is worth a lot of money to keep women feeling terrible after they hit 30. Imagine all the money women could save if they weren't trying to look younger.

Jessie, "sideshow" is a good description not only of what's occurring now but of the election.

Equillot, Ryan scares me like a hissing rattlesnake.

With so many millions reliant on Medicare, I'm thinking that AARP and other elder organizations might consider the option of litigation to prevent a voucher system change. Maybe we'll have to have a wheelchair sit-in to protest!

But I think there are still some rational Republicans in the House and Senate, aren't there? Please, tell me it's so!

CM, you hit the nail on the head with your comment on the glass ceiling. I can't remember the specific person on the former McCain campaign who made a similar comment (I believe it was his campaign manager). He observed that he thought some of the Trump support was b/c people didn't want a woman president.

Here it is 2016 and I still hear shallow and nasty comments against a woman who's achieved far more than most women do. It takes perseverance, stamina and dedication to get a law degree, practice, run for office, and put herself and her principals on the line in a national election.

Britain, India and Israel have each had women leaders. Whether anyone agrees with them (I didn't necessarily agree with Thatcher but I most certainly admired her ability to move into a male dominated world), their achievements at hammering away a glass ceiling certainly need to be recognized and respected.

I do hope that it doesn't go the way of the Bush administration that started with 911 the first year, went into the wrongful invasion of Iraq, and culminated in a great recession. Maybe seeing how wrong things can go is why the Bushes supported Clinton. I hope the new president will gather wise men and women around him, instead of this sideshow he is creating at the moment. The way it is going at the moment, government affairs will start being covered on ET, rather than on the nightly news.

Another comment - "unity" - he has been extremely successful in achieving the opposite.

Amy, know that it's not my intent to get into a political debate, but I do think that some clarification on Trump's statements is in order.

His comments on his "behavior" and attitude toward women (groping type comments) as well as his racial attitudes, are totally inappropriate and to me completely unacceptable for someone in any position of leadership, at any level, much less someone who purports to be qualified to lead America.

Has he retracted those comments and suddenly said he no longer believes groping behavior is acceptable? Has he apologized to the racial minorities he's offended? Has he retracted the most offensive and egregious wall comments he's made?

His lack of substance, balance and sexual and racial tolerance goes well beyond giving him a chance.

Reading all this, I choose to keep my political opinions to myself. But I have one comment.
Why not give the man a chance, just like Obama was given a chance for eight years by those who did not vote for him. It was accepted regardless of whether they liked him or not.
Now the country will go in a different direction for a while - a pattern that has repeated itself for 200+ years which is why our country is strong. There have been plenty of elections where 1/2 the public did not get their wish, but they did not behave like this, or threaten, or riot or even do silent protest marches.
If a house is divided against itself, the house cannot stand. We live in dangerous times and this is not the time for chaos, but for unity. Just saying...........