trustbutverify
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 5, 2007
- Messages
- 10,542
Maybe both?
President Trump
- Thread starter Puppycow
- Start date
- Status
Maybe both?
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
If Trump meant a word of what he said in his acceptance speech there's an easy way he could prove it, and allay quite a bit of the fear of those who did not vote for him, and that's to confirm Obama's pick for SCOTUS. He need only point out that if another vacancy opened up when he still had nearly a year of his term left he would expect to be the person to fill it, so preventing Obama from doing so was a dangerous precedent. AIUI the guy's a moderate who ought to be acceptable to both sides.
That's an interesting double entendre.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
**** you all, **** every one of you responsible for this ********** up country.
You're all sick pieces of ****, that's what you are, *********** sick pieces of ****.
You will not like the crap you've brought down on all of us. And the rest of us, the good people in this country, will not give in to your ignorance.
You're all sick pieces of ****, that's what you are, *********** sick pieces of ****.
You will not like the crap you've brought down on all of us. And the rest of us, the good people in this country, will not give in to your ignorance.
The Chinese are going to love funding your infrastructure.
Who are you addressing? You make no allowance for even the possibility that the Democrats nominated a weak standard bearer who ran a bad campaign, during which it was actually part of her strategy to promote Trump as a serious, important candidate? And calling half the people whose votes you need "a basket of deplorables" was certainly a clever strategy too. Clinton and the DNC gave us Trump. If Clinton had just not taken Wisconsin and Michigan for granted, she'd be drafting her Inaugural Address today.
http://www.salon.com/2016/11/09/the...ed-donald-trump-with-its-pied-piper-strategy/
http://www.slate.com/articles/busin...voters_racism_with_economics_she_blew_it.html
http://www.freep.com/story/news/pol...tes-michigan-pennsylvania-wisconsin/93572020/
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
On the one hand you decry her overall strategy as weak, then you say she coulda woulda shoulda. Seems like a disconnect to me. If she and her campaign were both so flawed, no amount of ground game would improve her chances. If merely wandering into Wisconsin at some point would have flipped the trick then she wasn't as flawed as you suggest.
No disconnect. She almost won despite her flaws. A couple relatively small decisions might have made the difference. But she started with such tremendous advantages that she should have won by a landslide, as even the Republicans expected. This should have been Johnson vs. Goldwater or Nixon vs. McGovern. Her flaws cost her the election.
Jrrarglblarg
Unregistered
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2010
- Messages
- 12,673
Her flaws, and a demographic deeply disturbed by globalism and queers, were contributing factors. I don't think any one thing is "the" reason.
Marcus
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 3,857
Somewhere I got the idea that you would not be terribly pleased with President Trump.
TriangleMan
Graduate Poster
*slowly pokes head in*, has everyone calmed down a little?
This is an aspect of US elections that I find odd. Elections are so long, so heavily covered, hyped up constantly about how critical they are, yet so many Americans don't vote. What was it this time, 44-48% didn't vote? So the electorate roughly broke down to:
25% Clinton
25% Trump
5% other parties
45% 'meh, whatever'
Not to say that if everyone did vote that it would change the outcome but the low level of participation is strange to me.
Over the past few days I spoke with three Muslim-Americans that I knew (duel citizens from Muslim countries but all of them have spent most of their lives in America). Not one of them voted. I found that really perplexing, what would it have taken to make them vote? One of them had an Hispanic (ex-)wife, so has half-Hispanic, half-[obvious Muslim heritage] children, living in America, but wasn't bothered enough to vote.
If someone is on a stage saying that if elected he'll ban people like you is not enough to inspire you to do something as simple as vote against them then . . . *shrug*
Big reveal -- they're all upset now. Shocking, I know.
I'm surprised by the result but I had said in the past that the election seemed less like a serious discussion of policy and more like the ultimate reality show, all drama, reactions and twists. Right before the vote I thought the excitement would soon be over and I'd kind of miss it. Guess the show has been renewed for another season. I do hope it is not as crazy as many fear but at the same time Americans have voted for a more conservative path, a message not just in the President race but also the Senate, so it is up to the Government to implement that vision.
Recall all the crazy scare-stories that were said in 2008 about what would happen if Obama was elected (he'd take all the guns away, make everyone Muslim-Gay-Communists or whatever). Naturally it didn't happen and from that I hope that much of the more extreme things people fear will come with Trump will not happen either.
America had eight years of Change, and for many it was not the change that they wanted. Now it's their turn.
This is an aspect of US elections that I find odd. Elections are so long, so heavily covered, hyped up constantly about how critical they are, yet so many Americans don't vote. What was it this time, 44-48% didn't vote? So the electorate roughly broke down to:
25% Clinton
25% Trump
5% other parties
45% 'meh, whatever'
Not to say that if everyone did vote that it would change the outcome but the low level of participation is strange to me.
Over the past few days I spoke with three Muslim-Americans that I knew (duel citizens from Muslim countries but all of them have spent most of their lives in America). Not one of them voted. I found that really perplexing, what would it have taken to make them vote? One of them had an Hispanic (ex-)wife, so has half-Hispanic, half-[obvious Muslim heritage] children, living in America, but wasn't bothered enough to vote.
If someone is on a stage saying that if elected he'll ban people like you is not enough to inspire you to do something as simple as vote against them then . . . *shrug*
Big reveal -- they're all upset now. Shocking, I know.
I'm surprised by the result but I had said in the past that the election seemed less like a serious discussion of policy and more like the ultimate reality show, all drama, reactions and twists. Right before the vote I thought the excitement would soon be over and I'd kind of miss it. Guess the show has been renewed for another season. I do hope it is not as crazy as many fear but at the same time Americans have voted for a more conservative path, a message not just in the President race but also the Senate, so it is up to the Government to implement that vision.
Recall all the crazy scare-stories that were said in 2008 about what would happen if Obama was elected (he'd take all the guns away, make everyone Muslim-Gay-Communists or whatever). Naturally it didn't happen and from that I hope that much of the more extreme things people fear will come with Trump will not happen either.
America had eight years of Change, and for many it was not the change that they wanted. Now it's their turn.
This is partially due to Electoral college. Elections are decided in a handful of states, and a formality in a majority of states with a majority of population. Another part of it is the severe negativism that pervades the elections. Plus voting in US typically requires standing in a line for several hours, which isn't usually the case, and US holds it's elections on a normal workday, which also suppress the turnout.
That aside, 55% participation is on the low end of normal, but not extremely low.
McHrozni
Ambrosia
Good of the Fods
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2009
- Messages
- 2,675
True, but I think for a really small value of partially.
The much bigger problem is the 2 party system that is foisted upon the electorate by the FPTP voting system.
That is what is causing voter apathy and disenfranchisement.
Change to a multiparty system, use preferential voting and give the people voting a real choice that reflects their views and not a binary choice that means the majority of the people are unhappy whoever wins an election.
How would the election look if there were 2 candidates from each main party and a Green and a Liberal and nobodies vote was wasted?
The same **** happens here in the UK. The most recent General Election here was the least representative result in history. The conservatives got 37% of the actual votes, and 100% of the power. (and by a quirk of how our system works, and a small referendum that made a couple of headlines here and there, now the PM here is someone that none of the electorate voted for)
In the US election Trump got ~49% of the votes and wields 100% of the power.
On both sides of the pond there are candidates in safe seats where if you disagree with the party that always wins, your vote might as well not exist.
The US EC means that votes in some states carry more weight than votes in other states, which does skew things partially, but the bigger problem is that we only get to choose from 2 main parties, and that's a consequence of FPTP.
Belz...
Fiend God
Exactly. He might end up doing very few of them, but he did say he would, so it's not exactly conspiracy theory territory, here.
It's not even that high, it's 47 point something percent.
47.x percent of 55% (of eligible people who actually bothered to (a) register and (b) turn out to vote) apparently represents a clear mandate whereas the opponent who got 47.y percent of 55% (where y is slightly higher than x) id vilified for being a failure.
That said, you can only win under the system you are operating under.
Belz...
Fiend God
But that's how the US form of democracy works. If Clinton had won by the same margin I'm pretty sure no one would be complaining about the EC right now.
True, which is why I also said, but for some reason you chose to snip - presumably so that you gave the impression that was whining about the result.
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
Not condoning such behavior, but...
If you've watched the Frontline "The Choice", it may have been Obama's relentless shellacking of Trump at a Correspondent's dinner that set the stage and provided the motivation for Trump's presidential run.
As such, his run became, in essence, a reality TV show in which he would say and do whatever necessary to win. A glorified "Survivor". Maybe he knew that saying he would have terrorist's families killed would stir dark passions in the electorate he was wooing, while at the same time having no intention of doing so. Same with banning Muslims. Same with the wall. And so on...
Credit where credit is due, the strategy worked. Now that he's won that "show" and checked that box, let's see if there's not a major shift in both behavior and objectives, as the new "reality show" is to win at being a good President - the BEST President, of course.
One can only hope!
Belz...
Fiend God
Not at all. I was simply adding my thoughts to yours. This habit of thinking that there's some malicious intent behind quoting and responding to a specific part of a post while not addressing other parts is silly and childish. It's not like I disagree with you or anything, but hey, if you want we can make believe that we do and argue furiously for 12 pages.
- Status