The Unofficial Election 2016 Results Thread PLEASE

theprestige said:
What part of the political machine is he, exactly? Party elite? Washington insider? SuperPAC money man? Revolving-door lobbyist? MIC contractor? Nepotic office-holder? Media shill?

Don't mistake exploiting a corrupt system for authoring and ensuring a corrupt system. Don't imagine that people can't tell the difference between a man who plays the crooked game and the crooks who run that game.
Click to expand...

Are we going to play this "Man of the People" game through his whole term like we did with Reagan?

As I said to someone on the other side of the spectrum, surely you don't believe that Karl Rove's wink-wink criticism of Trump was even approaching real, do you? He bragged about spending over fifty million of his PAC's money to assure "the grass roots candidacy" of Trump in just two states. Lawd only knows what his PAC and several others spent elsewhere. Donald Trump is as beholding to the PACs as any other candidate. The solution isn't to find the person who best pretends to not be so beholding, but to kill the system. Citizens United is still a joke.

I know of a large corporation in my former trade (transportation and logistics) who have a PAC for the employees (voluntary) that leans fairly liberal. Hell, with fifty thousand employees it's quite likely to. The owners and principal share holders individually contribute fifteen times that amount to the dark money PACs.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
If you are following the relentless wikileaks releases, the most ironic across the election was the DNC deciding to put the fix in for the inferior candidate (Hillary) against Trump, and at the same time starting off by promoting Trump.

Long ago I read posters here saying Hillary would do better, despite the polling showing Bernie doing better against Trump. All that wikileaks material brought Hillary down in the end. Bernie would be the president if the establishment insiders hadn't had their way.

They also listed Trump as one of the three Pied Piper candidates. Their strategy was to help him in order to divide and conquer the republicans. A bit of a backfire there.

One detail printed in plain black and white as per wikileaks was reference to an "agreement" between Hillary and Bernie. A non-aggression pact I would just like to see details of. But that and other observations make it pretty plain to me Bernie willingly took a dive early for Hillary. When he came out and said nobody was interested in Hillary's emails - that was absurd.

If you want to take that at face value then he looks awfully damned stupid given what's in them, lol.

I think they bought him off, or some blackmail maybe. But he was the cheapest person in congress so it wouldn't take much.
Click to expand...

This is fascinating. I won't say I'm right, but your views of what government and politics feel childish to me. It is in this weird whole picture of some sort of malfeasance between Clinton, Sanders, and the DNC. Honestly, all I see is the legitimate interaction.

This has been the hardest thing for me to grasp this election. Where does this sense of malfeasance come from? Why do so many have that reaction when I and many others see reasonable activity?
 
Pterodactyl said:
I am not totally shocked that this has happened. I am little unnerved.

I think the Democrats need to look at this as a wakeup call to make an attempt to appeal to rural and blue collar America. Or at the very least, not simply treat them all as backward rednecks/deplorables. It's not that there's not some truth in that, but I dont think it is that group's most defining trait, particularly when weighed against their contributions to the economy at large. It would appear to be a losing strategy to demonize the bulk of the country's workforce and wealth.
Click to expand...

If you view the peasants as revolting, they will.
 
AlaskaBushPilot said:
If you are following the relentless wikileaks releases, the most ironic across the election was the DNC deciding to put the fix in for the inferior candidate (Hillary) against Trump, and at the same time starting off by promoting Trump.

Long ago I read posters here saying Hillary would do better, despite the polling showing Bernie doing better against Trump. All that wikileaks material brought Hillary down in the end. Bernie would be the president if the establishment insiders hadn't had their way.

They also listed Trump as one of the three Pied Piper candidates. Their strategy was to help him in order to divide and conquer the republicans. A bit of a backfire there.

One detail printed in plain black and white as per wikileaks was reference to an "agreement" between Hillary and Bernie. A non-aggression pact I would just like to see details of. But that and other observations make it pretty plain to me Bernie willingly took a dive early for Hillary. When he came out and said nobody was interested in Hillary's emails - that was absurd.

If you want to take that at face value then he looks awfully damned stupid given what's in them, lol.

I think they bought him off, or some blackmail maybe. But he was the cheapest person in congress so it wouldn't take much.
Click to expand...

You're mistaking comparisons. Hillary wasn't the best (of all possibilities), but the better of the two, her and Bernie. And by better, I merely mean in terms of amount of votes they would draw. I do not think Bernie would've survived a Drudge-Breitbart-Wikileaks assault any better than Hillary did. And contrary to log cabin wisdom, Bernie had many more negatives that they would've gobbled up. You didn't see any in the campaign because they were too busy making him sound like a noble warrior loser instead of a Jew Socialist loser. Had Bernie been on the bottom of the ticket, the country would've been papered with his praise of Che and the Castros and his honeymoon in Russia, plus every mention of him in a Republican speech would've dubbed him "Socialist Bernie Sanders".

Bannon and Bossie would've had to install drip catchment systems to control the overflow of anti-semitic spittle. Without mentioning the word "Jew" they would oversell his Jewishness. "Hillary and her cabal of internationalist bankers blah blah blah".... "We need to emphasize Christian values..... wink wink nudge nudge...". You think that if a couple of Dem tricksters could come up with it that the party of the bigots couldn't? I laugh.

They would've eaten him alive.
 
The US/Auatralian partnership has lasted over 70 years. As far as I recall we are the only ally who has supported the US in every war since, including the various Gulf War and Middle Eastern manifestations. We need common principles for this to continue. Trump has never mentioned Australia in any speech, despite the nation being in the G20 and, as I've said, being a staunch ally. In fact, he has said past alliances mean nothing.

It is now time to tell the US to piss off and take its military bases and spy sites, particularly Pine Gap, with them. This troglodyte does not warrant an alliance with Australia.
 
Belgian thought said:
"A five minute chat with the average voter will show you what's wrong with democracy"

― Winston S. Churchill

: (
Click to expand...

That's the conundrum, isn't it? People are supposed to have rights, and a say in their own future. But ideally we'd want to govern them according to our own idea of their best interests, whether they agree with us or not.

Fun fact: Before Hitler ruined it for everybody, fascism was seen by many in the west as an improvement on democracy. A way to give the state the necessary power to act for the good of the citizenry, while still including all good citizens in the decision-making process.

Communism was also seen as an improvement on democracy. We all know how that turned out. But I am always eager to hear of any proposal for a better form of government than allowing people to have a say in their own governance. What's your idea?
 
BobTheCoward said:
This is fascinating. I won't say I'm right, but your views of what government and politics feel childish to me.
Click to expand...

Starting off with ad homs, yes that is a bright neon sign to "no argument".

But I did teach this at the university level for a couple decades and served in office myself. Ran a gubernatorial campaign. Vice chairman of a statewide political party.

So it is more than pedestrian interest, especially where the rules are concerned. Not knowing them is most likely the source of your bewilderment about what is "childish".


It is in this weird whole picture of some sort of malfeasance between Clinton, Sanders, and the DNC. Honestly, all I see is the legitimate interaction.

This has been the hardest thing for me to grasp this election. Where does this sense of malfeasance come from? Why do so many have that reaction when I and many others see reasonable activity?
Click to expand...

Yes, playing dumb - that too is not an argument. The DNC chair was fired on the evening of the convention for starters. This is one of the great contradictions that we independents are supposed to be stupid enough to accept. On the one hand, they're fired. On the other hand, nothing to see here. You don't get fired for "reasonable activity". And that is only the beginning.

There is a class action suit being filed and every new wikileaks release adds to our knowledge of the fraud. When you take money from people you have to follow your representations about how you will use it. The law doesn't care much about your opinion. You can condone assault or rape too and it wouldn't have any affect on the law.

Who replaced the fired chair? Donna Brazile, who gave debate questions to Hillary, and they've just begun with her. You are obviously not following the tsunami of wikileaks material. Another dump of DNC emails just now.

Assange has built a program that harvests social media and other data to determine the tranches of leaks. That's why you see pieces of broken email chains along with material that appears to be disorganized if the only thing you were doing was trying to indict people.

He's back to DNC leaks again, and I can hardly wait to see what is next after that.

This is a very low quality site in terms of how abreast people are. Media and communications has changed so radically. You don't need to have CNN or Fox or your party tell you what to think. You can source direct information yourself and follow specialists by subject. It is coming out so fast now that I can see a discussion board is an increasingly poor way to spend your time.
 
lionking said:
The US/Auatralian partnership has lasted over 70 years. As far as I recall we are the only ally who has supported the US in every war since, including the various Gulf War and Middle Eastern manifestations. We need common principles for this to continue. Trump has never mentioned Australia in any speech, despite the nation being in the G20 and, as I've said, being a staunch ally. In fact, he has said past alliances mean nothing.

It is now time to tell the US to piss off and take its military bases and spy sites, particularly Pine Gap, with them. This troglodyte does not warrant an alliance with Australia.
Click to expand...

No. We should start charging the USA to drop bombs on Bradshaw Field and Shoalwater Bay bombing ranges. Trump is a businessman. He understands and respects the taking advantage of a commercial opportunity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom