http://www.aol.com/article/lifestyle/2016/11/07/surprising-new-study-on-swearing-surfaces/21600682/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058&
I'm shocked, absolutely shocked.
Thus far it would seem that the glass ceiling will remain intact...
NYT predicts Trump will win (9:57pm EST): http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president
nm...I was wrong about that.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 08, 2016, 10:00:26 PM
Wait five minutes. They don't include states until voting closes.
I agree anything can happen. As I type this they are projecting he will get 297 electoral votes and has a 95% chance of winning...
Don't see how they can predict this.
Ding dong da wicked bitch is dead, ai na?
Never will I ever set foot in or spend money in any state who voted for Donald Trump. I am so disgusted with the USA. That's not my country anymore, he's not my president.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 08, 2016, 10:15:17 PM
Never will I ever set foot in or spend money in any state who voted for Donald Trump. I am so disgusted with the USA. That's not my country anymore, he's not my president.
That might mean you will never drive across an Illinois state line. Good luck with that.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 08, 2016, 10:17:29 PM
That might mean you will never drive across an Illinois state line. Good luck with that.
but he could say 'i won't set foot or spend money in a COUNTY who voted for Donald Trump' and still be able to fly to most major metro airports, go to NFL/NBA/MLB games, visit most prominent museums/shows/etc.
that frees up a bunch of geography if you don't mind staying out of the country.
Quote from: naginiF on November 08, 2016, 10:26:02 PM
but he could say 'i won't set foot or spend money in a COUNTY who voted for Donald Trump' and still be able to fly to most major metro airports, go to NFL/NBA/MLB games, visit most prominent museums/shows/etc.
that frees up a bunch of geography if you don't mind staying out of the country.
Already in England for a year, looks like that stay may be extended for a few more years.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 08, 2016, 10:28:31 PM
Already in England for a year, looks like that stay may be extended for a few more years.
So you're just dealing with the Brexit people, then.
I did not vote for Hillary. I did not vote for Donald. I do not want either as the President of the US.
Markets TANKING at the thought of Trump presidency. Worse than 9/11.
More importantly...
Mark Lazerus @MarkLazerus 1h1 hour ago
I can't imagine what this is like, the message this sends, to people of color, to women, to immigrants, to LGBTQ people, to so many.
This is honestly disappointing. I get disenfranchised people. I do. But it was more than that. So much more.
A candidate ran, in a small percentage, on racism. And the US supported it.
I could easily point to baby boomers as wanting "their" America back. But it's not like Millenials were running from Trump.
Crazy night.
Edit: Our VP-elect doesn't believe in evolution.
Let freedom ring, hey?
America has spoken. Dat's democracy, ai na?
Biden has to be second guessing himself right now. Not knocking his decision, clearly he's given a lot and been through a lot, but this wouldn't be close if he was in.
Cliton was so disliked Rubio, Bush, Kasich, Fiorina, or Carson would've trounced her ass, hey?
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 08, 2016, 10:15:17 PM
Never will I ever set foot in or spend money in any state who voted for Donald Trump. I am so disgusted with the USA. That's not my country anymore, he's not my president.
Not sure how your planning to leave Illinois then. ;D
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 08, 2016, 10:33:21 PM
I did not vote for Hillary. I did not vote for Donald. I do not want either as the President of the US.
Markets TANKING at the thought of Trump presidency. Worse than 9/11.
More importantly...
Mark Lazerus @MarkLazerus 1h1 hour ago
I can't imagine what this is like, the message this sends, to people of color, to women, to immigrants, to LGBTQ people, to so many.
This is honestly disappointing. I get disenfranchised people. I do. But it was more than that. So much more.
I could easily point to baby boomers as wanting "their" America back. But it's not like Millenials were running from Trump.
Crazy night.
Edit: Our VP-elect doesn't believe in evolution.
I'm in the same boat as you. I voted for neither of them. I hope this opens everyone's eyes to the other 4 parties that run each year.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 08, 2016, 10:15:17 PM
Never will I ever set foot in or spend money in any state who voted for Donald Trump. I am so disgusted with the USA. That's not my country anymore, he's not my president.
We're gonna miss you at Marquette games.
I didn't vote for any candidate on the ballot, but I'll tell you, I sure am enjoying all of the pundits, experts, pollsters, party officials, etc. writhe in intellectual agony/defeat right now.
All y'all who cast a ballot today - whether you voted D or R - every single one of you is responsible for this mess. So own it. Unless, of course, you honestly voted for Hillary or Donald believing that they are truly representative of who you are... in which case, you're not responsible, you're just a schmuck.
So can we start talking about compulsory voting in the US yet? Or is everyone still afraid about having elections where candidates campaign on issues rather than turnout?
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 08, 2016, 10:36:33 PM
America has spoken. Dat's democracy, ai na?
What if he loses the popular vote?
Da system's, da system. Hillary shoulda worked ta change it over her 30 years in politics. Da reel question is whether or not dems will except the election results, hey?
8-)
Choke job
lol, Podesta right now. What a fruitcake
Quote from: Jay Bee on November 09, 2016, 01:03:27 AM
lol, Podesta right now. What a fruitcake
For all the crap we give Millenials, i have to give them credit.... it was clear on their faces leaving Javits that they saw through Podesta's BS and just wanted to be told the truth.
Maybe there's hope for this country's future yet.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 08, 2016, 10:15:17 PM
Never will I ever set foot in or spend money in any state who voted for Donald Trump. I am so disgusted with the USA. That's not my country anymore, he's not my president.
I didn't want Trump but my god man, suck it up. This is a democracy you're not always going to get what you want. Four or eight years is a very short time in the grand scheme of history.
How the hell can all of you be okay with this? Oh right, cause you're all straight, white males who are so selfish that can't see the bigger picture that Trump ran a campaign of hate. Absolutely embarrassing.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 09, 2016, 03:28:18 AM
How the hell can all of you be okay with this? Oh right, cause you're all straight, white males who are so selfish that can't be the bigger picture that Trump ran a campaign of hate. Absolutely embarrassing.
That's an awfully broad brush to paint with.
Just an observation...the press called out Hillary voters as educated voters. Their clear implication was that everyone else was just uneducated. Really?
One other observation, traveling through Wisconsin last weekend, literally, 9 out of ten yard signs were for Trump. I didn't expect that.
By the way, I was for none of the above. It was kinda like Bucky v ND.
I think people were really ready to move past the Clinton-Bush era. I'm not sure who Hillary Clinton would have beaten...David Duke maybe.
How can you look your daughters, wives and sisters in the eyes and say you didn't do everything you possibly could to make sure a man who promotes sexual assault and body shaming doesn't get elected?
How can you look into the eyes of friends who are black, Hispanic, or Muslim and say the same thing?
How can you look into the eyes of friends who have disabled children or relatives?
I could never live with myself, and I really hope a lot of you feel squirmy about it because if you don't, than that is a sad state of affairs of America.
When people want change and you nominate an unpopular political elite, this is going to happen. She was a bad candidate.
2016 - Back to the future II without the hover-boards -- come on the hover-boards were the best part.
Unfortunately, this race had huge racial undertones too. A lot of the poor white Mississippi river towns in Iowa and Wisconsin went Trump and republican. This was a winning night for many establishment republicans too.
I think the elites and liberals got the race war they had been pushing for the past 3-4 years by backing the black criminal as martyrs and blaming white people when they were killed, when really many of them were just bad people. Voters decided to say white lives matter too, even though the media and president wouldn't.
The Dems biggest mistake: Hillary became the 2016 nominee in 2008 the night Obama was elected.
8 years of scrutiny exposed her flaws. Dems would have been better off letting a late bloomer on the ballot. In hindsight, Sanders may have been a stronger candidate. But the Clinton shadow shutdown most Dems from even considering a run. Who knows what prospects sat on the sidelines.
As for the future of our country, we'll see. Bush II sparked a lot of moving to Canada rhetoric. People stayed. As for policy decisions, well, my wife referred to Paul Ryan as the Secret President this morning. I think she may be right. Policy will be shaped by the House.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 09, 2016, 04:39:59 AM
How can you look your daughters, wives and sisters in the eyes and say you didn't do everything you possibly could to make sure a man who promotes sexual assault and body shaming doesn't get elected?
How can you look into the eyes of friends who are black, Hispanic, or Muslim and say the same thing?
How can you look into the eyes of friends who have disabled children or relatives?
I could never live with myself, and I really hope a lot of you feel squirmy about it because if you don't, than that is a sad state of affairs of America.
I would ask them why didn't the female vote, Latino vote and black vote carry for HC like it should have?
HC lost sizable margins in those demographics, which is 75% of thr reason why she lost.
People like you screaming 'what about these people!?'are ridiculously off base. They didn't support HC as much as BO, that's not everyone's issue if they didn't make it an issue either.
Quote from: PTM on November 09, 2016, 07:02:17 AM
I would ask them why didn't the female vote, Latino vote and black vote carry for HC like it should have?
HC lost sizable margins in those demographics, which is 75% of thr reason why she lost.
People like you screaming 'what about these people!?'are ridiculously off base. They didn't support HC as much as BO, that's not everyone's issue if they didn't make it an issue either.
Then I obviously live in the wrong country. Im tired and embarassed. I didnt go to class today because I didnt want people to hear my accent. Im done with the US, just done. This was just the final straw.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 09, 2016, 07:09:12 AM
Then I obviously live in the wrong country. Im tired and embarassed. I didnt go to class today because I didnt want people to hear my accent. Im done with the US, just done. This was just the final straw.
Instead of attacking those that voted Trump, you should be more disappointed in the Democratic party and their campaign.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 09, 2016, 07:09:12 AM
Then I obviously live in the wrong country. Im tired and embarassed. I didnt go to class today because I didnt want people to hear my accent. Im done with the US, just done. This was just the final straw.
You realize, many people felt the same way when Obama was elected.
We all survived.
If you don't like it, vote him out in four years.
Quote from: PTM on November 09, 2016, 07:15:23 AM
Instead of attacking those that voted Trump, you should be more disappointed in the Democratic party and their campaign.
This. I would have voted for Bernie if he were on the ticket, but instead I voted 3rd party rather than pull the lever for one of the clowns on the top of the ticket.
You can lay the blame for Trump's election right at the feet of the DNC, which actively sabotaged Sanders' campaign.
2016 is to 1980 like...
Trump is to Reagan like...
Brexit is to Thatcher....
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 09, 2016, 07:09:12 AM
Then I obviously live in the wrong country. Im tired and embarassed. I didnt go to class today because I didnt want people to hear my accent. Im done with the US, just done. This was just the final straw.
This reminded me of one of the most underrated threads on Scoop
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=43312.0
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 09, 2016, 07:09:12 AM
Then I obviously live in the wrong country. Im tired and embarassed. I didnt go to class today because I didnt want people to hear my accent. Im done with the US, just done. This was just the final straw.
First time voter, eh? Or just a whiny, entitled, misguided Millennial?
Chitown, you may not like it, but here's a nice little tidbit for you.... it doesn't matter. Keep telling yourself that. It doesn't matter. Neither Donald nor Hillary give two shiites about you. They played you like they did. They told you what you wanted to hear. If they had a box of trophies, you would have received one. But the reality is they only wanted your vote, and then it's back to business this morning.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 09, 2016, 12:25:14 AM
Da system's, da system. Hillary shoulda worked ta change it over her 30 years in politics. Da reel question is whether or not dems will except the election results, hey?
True, but is the system actually democracy?
I saw this posted as a comment in a Deadspin thread (believe it or not), and I think it sums things up pretty well about why Hillary didn't win:
QuoteWhen Clinton talked about unity and "we can be dreamers and doers" after defeating Bernie Sanders, I laughed.
How can this be unity when you labeled people voting against you as "Rebel"?
How can this be unity when you dismissed Independent voters in many states? (For example, New York's voter registration is before 1st debate)
How can this be unity when you labeled Hispanics as "the most brand loyal consumers in the World"?
How can this be unity when you labeled millennials as "living in their parents' basement"?
How can this be unity when you always talked behind closed doors?
How can this be unity when DNC already favored Clinton?
How can this be unity when you never willing to listen our concerns?
HOW CAN THIS BE UNITY?
We lost Pennsylvania! A blue state since 1988!
We lost both Senate and House again!
Wake up, people.
It is your goddamn arrogance that killed you in the end.
You have no one to blame but yourself, YOU DAMN ARROGANCE.
Quote from: Benny B on November 09, 2016, 08:07:45 AM
First time voter, eh? Or just a whiny, entitled, misguided Millennial?
Chitown, you may not like it, but here's a nice little tidbit for you.... it doesn't matter. Keep telling yourself that. It doesn't matter. Neither Donald nor Hillary give two shiites about you. They played you like they did. They told you what you wanted to hear. If they had a box of trophies, you would have received one. But the reality is they only wanted your vote, and then it's back to business this morning.
Yeah it's kinda cute when young people haven't yet been fully jaded by life.
Quote from: LAZER on November 09, 2016, 08:08:07 AM
True, but is the system actually democracy?
Actually, no. Our country was not designed to be a democracy. It is a representative republic.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 09, 2016, 04:39:59 AM
How can you look your daughters, wives and sisters in the eyes and say you didn't do everything you possibly could to make sure a man who promotes sexual assault and body shaming doesn't get elected?
How can you look into the eyes of friends who are black, Hispanic, or Muslim and say the same thing?
How can you look into the eyes of friends who have disabled children or relatives?
I could never live with myself, and I really hope a lot of you feel squirmy about it because if you don't, than that is a sad state of affairs of America.
Ax Bubba how dat cigar he shoved up Monica's poosay tasted, hey?
Quote from: warriorchick on November 09, 2016, 08:09:35 AM
I saw this posted as a comment in a Deadspin thread (believe it or not), and I think it sums things up pretty well about why Hillary didn't win:
I agree with this completely.
I will also say that dismissing people as "deplorables," when many of those people voted for her husband, was ridiculously dismissive.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 09, 2016, 08:12:07 AM
I agree with this completely.
I will also say that dismissing people as "deplorables," when many of those people voted for her husband, was ridiculously dismissive.
And I don't know why people were so shocked that the polls were so wrong. Who is going to admit that they are going to vote for Trump, even as the lesser of two evils, when you are immediately going to be labeled an ignorant bigot?
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 09, 2016, 08:10:19 AM
Yeah it's kinda cute when young people haven't yet been fully jaded by life.
I know, right? Though I suppose you can't get to this level of cynicism without seeing a few puppies kicked first.
Quote from: warriorchick on November 09, 2016, 08:24:25 AM
And I don't know why people were so shocked that the polls were so wrong. Who is going to admit that they are going to vote for Trump, even as the lesser of two evils, when you are immediately going to be labeled an ignorant bigot?
All my coworkers laughed at me when I said beware of the Brexit effect. Not going to say a word today.
Quote from: Benny B on November 09, 2016, 08:26:32 AM
I know, right? Though I suppose you can't get to this level of cynicism without seeing a few puppies kicked first.
All my coworkers laughed at me when I said beware of the Brexit effect. Not going to say a word today.
Reminds me more of the Bradley Effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
It's just so shocking that it was potentially so huge (yuge), if this is indeed the main reason that the polls were so misleading.
Hillary lost because she was a horribly flawed candidate and because she couldn't energize enough minorities and women to vote for her. She lost because she made some terrible mistakes - if they even were "mistakes" - with the email server. She lost because America is sick of the Clintons. She lost because the vast majority of Americans considered her untrustworthy. She had near-record unfavorables (of course, having even worse unfavorables didn't prevent her opponent from winning!).
Trump won because Americans wanted change for change sake. He won because a large swath of America is gullible and pathetic.
Think about this man. He's outwardly racist -- it's not his "fault" that every radical racist group supported him, but he certainly didn't push back on that, and in fact, he hired an avowed racist as his campaign CEO. He's an admitted sexist, an admitted sexual abuser, an admitted pervert who bragged about being able to watch 15-year-old Teen USA contestants in various states of undress.
He has zero knowledge of anything beyond our borders and no intellectual curiosity. He brazenly refused to show his tax returns. PolitiFact said that more than 70% of what he said during the campaign was either "mostly false," "false" or "pants on fire." He wants to spread nukes around the world and has threatened to use them. He has offered few, if any, detailed policies. He is exceedingly vindictive; it will be interesting to see how he engages with the many Republicans who repudiated him.
He won because he did a brilliant job of appealing to the "deplorables" ... and enough non-deplorables to get over the top.
He won because he was right about the election being rigged; he was just wrong about the "rig-ee." The combination of the Russian hacks being leaked through Wikileaks and Comey's outrageously awful handling of the email situation -- all in the campaign's final two weeks -- made things very difficult for Clinton. Of course, those situations wouldn't have existed had Clinton not committed her multiple faux pas.
Our VP-elect denies science. He's a bible-thumping evolution denier who thinks God actually created the world in six days, and did so only a few thousand years ago: the classic "Jesus rode dinosaurs" guy. Disavows anything to do with climate change. Wants to deny women control of their bodies and futures. In many ways, I fear him more than I fear Trump.
In the end, more than half of America was bamboozled by a racist, sexist, bombastic snake-oil salesman. How embarrassing. We are the laughingstock of the world.
Look, as long as Trump doesn't blow up the world, this probably won't affect me personally. I'm white, I'm not rich but I am financially comfortable, I've got a house, I've got a Sugar Mama. I sure wouldn't want to be anything but a white male under a Trump presidency, though, especially with the GOP retaining control of the Senate. 50+ years of work on women's rights, black rights, etc, are in jeopardy.
Of course, Mrs. MU82 and I are probably going to lose about a year's worth of salary in the stock market today, but this too shall pass. Something fairly similar happened after Brexit, and the market recovered fairly quickly.
The girls basketball team I coach won our season opener yesterday afternoon and then the old-man's softball team I play on won our league championship last night, so I was feeling pretty jubilant until I started watching the election results.
But I did all I could do - even held my nose and voted for Hillary - so now I'll be a big boy and live with it. I don't have a choice. Despite my wife saying she wants to move to Canada, we're not going anywhere. We probably won't even leave North Carolina, which has erased a century of progressive progress in the last 4 years.
So I'm going to try to look at the few bright sides:
1. I like to think we have seen the last of the Clintons. Hillary couldn't beat an unknown rookie whose name sounded like Osama in 2008, and she couldn't beat one of the most unpopular people on the planet in 2016. She's toast, and she can take her douchebag husband with her.
2. This should open the Dems' eyes to see they can't just throw anybody on the presidential ballot and rely on the minority vote. They need to start tapping into their pool of younger potential stars that progressive whites, minorities, women, Millennials, etc can get behind - more like Obama, less like Clinton. It will be interesting to see how the Cory Bookers, the Julian Castros, the Eric Garcettis, etc, progress as political leaders.
3. This totally exposed the religious right as the hypocrites they are. Has there EVER, EVER, EVER been a less-Christian, major-party political candidate? Even if one offers Jefferson and a couple others from that era as atheists, they weren't blatantly, undeniably immoral, like this guy. And yet the Christians fell all over each other to vote him in. Here in NC, the GOP passed the infamous "bathroom law" because, they said, it would prevent perverts pretending to be trans from terrorizing their daughters in bathrooms and locker rooms. And then, for president, they back an actual pervert who literally bragged about spying on their daughters in the locker room!! Classic.
Finally, I'll be curious to see if the Dems in Congress have the nuts to wage the kind of stonewalling, obstructing and fillibustering attack that the Republicans did with Obama. My guess is that they don't.
All right. End of screed. I'd better get started on that bomb shelter.
Nah. This is why Clinton lost.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_democratic_party_establishment_is_finished_after_trump.html
"I think of the lawmakers, the consultants, the operatives, and—yes—the center-left media, and how everything said over the past few years leading up to this night was bullshit.
The midterm losses? That was just a bad cycle, structurally speaking; presidential demographics would make up for it. The party establishment made a grievous mistake rallying around Hillary Clinton. It wasn't just a lack of recent political seasoning. She was a bad candidate, with no message beyond heckling the opposite sideline. She was a total misfit for both the politics of 2016 and the energy of the Democratic Party as currently constituted. She could not escape her baggage, and she must own that failure herself.
Theoretically smart people in the Democratic Party should have known that. And yet they worked giddily to clear the field for her. Every power-hungry young Democrat fresh out of law school, every rising lawmaker, every old friend of the Clintons wanted a piece of the action. This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn't know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did."
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 09, 2016, 08:40:40 AM
Nah. This is why Clinton lost.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/the_democratic_party_establishment_is_finished_after_trump.html
"I think of the lawmakers, the consultants, the operatives, and—yes—the center-left media, and how everything said over the past few years leading up to this night was bullcrap.
The midterm losses? That was just a bad cycle, structurally speaking; presidential demographics would make up for it. The party establishment made a grievous mistake rallying around Hillary Clinton. It wasn't just a lack of recent political seasoning. She was a bad candidate, with no message beyond heckling the opposite sideline. She was a total misfit for both the politics of 2016 and the energy of the Democratic Party as currently constituted. She could not escape her baggage, and she must own that failure herself.
Theoretically smart people in the Democratic Party should have known that. And yet they worked giddily to clear the field for her. Every power-hungry young Democrat fresh out of law school, every rising lawmaker, every old friend of the Clintons wanted a piece of the action. This was their ride up the power chain. The whole edifice was hollow, built atop the same unearned sense of inevitability that surrounded Clinton in 2008, and it collapsed, just as it collapsed in 2008, only a little later in the calendar. The voters of the party got taken for a ride by the people who controlled it, the ones who promised they had everything figured out and sneeringly dismissed anyone who suggested otherwise. They promised that Hillary Clinton had a lock on the Electoral College. These people didn't know what they were talking about, and too many of us in the media thought they did."
Not to mention that the press jinxed Hillary with all the articles titled "Why Trump Lost" that they published on Monday.
Also, the main reason the Dems had to back Hillary is that they all owned the Clintons too many favors.
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 08, 2016, 10:15:17 PM
Never will I ever set foot in or spend money in any state who voted for Donald Trump. I am so disgusted with the USA. That's not my country anymore, he's not my president.
Want a roommate? I put in for a transfer to one of the European offices this morning
Quote from: Benny B on November 08, 2016, 11:57:47 PM
...
So can we start talking about compulsory voting in the US yet? Or is everyone still afraid about having elections where candidates campaign on issues rather than turnout?
Absolutely, as soon as you make it legal for the government to compel speech. Voting = speech. Not voting = speech. Compulsory voting is in direct conflict with the first amendment and that doesn't change just because we really like the kind of speech (voting) that we're forcing people to engage in.
Remember all:
The Republic endures.
And lastly, before this gets locked, it won't be as bad as everyone fears. I remember panic on the right when Obama won in '08 with majorities in the House and Senate. He managed to pass a stimulus, Dodd-Frank, and Obamacare before the midterms came and he lost the majority. That was with a (largely) united caucus and an experienced political operative in the White House.
When he's sworn in, Trump will have a deeply divided caucus in the House, a majority subject to a filibuster in the Senate, and practically 0 knowledge of, or interest in learning, the machinations necessary for passing legislation. If Obama managed three big things, I'd be stunned if Trump manages more than one.
Quote from: jficke13 on November 09, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
Remember all:
The Republic endures.
Exactly. The sun rose today. Marquette basketball starts Friday. Two weeks until we gorge ourselves on Turkey and give our loved ones a hug.
Chill y'all. Everyone will survive, maybe even prosper, hey?
Trump and Hillary are both awful, repulsive human beings who both said and did awful, repulsive things and who are both unfit for the office of presidency.
However, in basically the simplest terms imaginable, Trump won because he came across to voters as an actual person while Hillary came across as a cold, political robot.
Quote from: PTM on November 09, 2016, 07:15:23 AM
Instead of attacking those that voted Trump, you should be more disappointed in the Democratic party and their campaign.
They're not mutually exclusive.
I'm also embarrassed to be an American today.
Quote from: jficke13 on November 09, 2016, 08:59:45 AM
When he's sworn in, Trump will have a deeply divided caucus in the House, a majority subject to a filibuster in the Senate, and practically 0 knowledge of, or interest in learning, the machinations necessary for passing legislation. If Obama managed three big things, I'd be stunned if Trump manages more than one.
The wall?
And the You Know Who-icans will pay for it!
I watched until 2 AM Eastern and ran out of gas and went to bed. No major news on the networks from maybe midnight until 2 AM other than calling Maine. I was flipping around watching the coverage and it was interesting with the giddiness of Fox News, NBC's the sky is falling coverage (though Lester Holt kept trying unsuccessfully to reign in all the commentators-I kinda like him) and the comparatively centrist coverage of CBS and ABC, though of course they lean left.
Yesterday was the first time I ever voted third party (it doesn't matter much as CT is heavily democratic and Clinton winning the state has long been a forgone conclusion) because I very much disliked both major party candidates. So I'm not disappointed this morning, I knew I wasn't going to be happy about the winner regardless of who won.
It's amazing that there was such a high voter turnout for two such disliked candidates. I'm also surprised the third party candidates didn't do better, which I was hoping would send a message to both major parties to start doing the work of the people.
Well, lets hope that Trump surprises us in a good way.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 09, 2016, 09:02:51 AM
Chill y'all. Everyone will survive, maybe even prosper, hey?
Yup, just like everyone did fine the last 8 years.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2016, 09:14:38 AM
They're not mutually exclusive.
I'm also embarrassed to be an American today.
I'm darn proud that even selecting this particular leader, we still have a peaceful transition of power. I'm disappointed with the president that America elected, but I'm not embarrassed to be an American.
One factor I think is being underrated/underreported in all this is that Trump's win is in large part due to how cynical we've become about our politics and our politicians, something for which nearly all of us are to blame (not the least of which is our politicians).
In my failed efforts to understand Trump's support, I can't tell you how many times I've come across comments along the lines of "He can't do any worse" or "At least he's something different" or "They're all terrible, but he'll shake things up."
The election of Donald Trump yesterday is the same as the election of Jesse Ventura in Minnesota or Arnold Schwarzenegger in California, just on a much grander (and unfortunately, more serious) scale. There's such distrust for our politicians and institutions that people are willing to take this kind of a gamble and elect someone so clearly unqualified for the job because 1) What difference does it make? and 2) How much worse can he be? (Answer: a lot, but let's hope not)
Unfortunately, I think his supporters are going to be slapped with harsh reality when they realize he's spent the last 40+ years as a part of the same ruling elite they (and he) vilify and he cares for them about as much as the Clintons.
Quote from: jficke13 on November 09, 2016, 09:31:13 AM
I'm darn proud that even selecting this particular leader, we still have a peaceful transition of power. I'm disappointed with the president that America elected, but I'm not embarrassed to be an American.
I think that's a great perspective. My only concern is in whom is emboldened by this outcome or, even worse, legitimized by it. As long as the extremes are kept as extremes we'll be fine as a society.
Quote from: MU82 on November 09, 2016, 08:31:26 AM
Hillary lost because she was a horribly flawed candidate and because she couldn't energize enough minorities and women to vote for her. She lost because she made some terrible mistakes - if they even were "mistakes" - with the email server. She lost because America is sick of the Clintons. She lost because the vast majority of Americans considered her untrustworthy. She had near-record unfavorables (of course, having even worse unfavorables didn't prevent her opponent from winning!).
Trump won because Americans wanted change for change sake. He won because a large swath of America is gullible and pathetic.
Think about this man. He's outwardly racist -- it's not his "fault" that every radical racist group supported him, but he certainly didn't push back on that, and in fact, he hired an avowed racist as his campaign CEO. He's an admitted sexist, an admitted sexual abuser, an admitted pervert who bragged about being able to watch 15-year-old Teen USA contestants in various states of undress.
He has zero knowledge of anything beyond our borders and no intellectual curiosity. He brazenly refused to show his tax returns. PolitiFact said that more than 70% of what he said during the campaign was either "mostly false," "false" or "pants on fire." He wants to spread nukes around the world and has threatened to use them. He has offered few, if any, detailed policies. He is exceedingly vindictive; it will be interesting to see how he engages with the many Republicans who repudiated him.
He won because he did a brilliant job of appealing to the "deplorables" ... and enough non-deplorables to get over the top.
He won because he was right about the election being rigged; he was just wrong about the "rig-ee." The combination of the Russian hacks being leaked through Wikileaks and Comey's outrageously awful handling of the email situation -- all in the campaign's final two weeks -- made things very difficult for Clinton. Of course, those situations wouldn't have existed had Clinton not committed her multiple faux pas.
Our VP-elect denies science. He's a bible-thumping evolution denier who thinks God actually created the world in six days, and did so only a few thousand years ago: the classic "Jesus rode dinosaurs" guy. Disavows anything to do with climate change. Wants to deny women control of their bodies and futures. In many ways, I fear him more than I fear Trump.
In the end, more than half of America was bamboozled by a racist, sexist, bombastic snake-oil salesman. How embarrassing. We are the laughingstock of the world.
Look, as long as Trump doesn't blow up the world, this probably won't affect me personally. I'm white, I'm not rich but I am financially comfortable, I've got a house, I've got a Sugar Mama. I sure wouldn't want to be anything but a white male under a Trump presidency, though, especially with the GOP retaining control of the Senate. 50+ years of work on women's rights, black rights, etc, are in jeopardy.
Of course, Mrs. MU82 and I are probably going to lose about a year's worth of salary in the stock market today, but this too shall pass. Something fairly similar happened after Brexit, and the market recovered fairly quickly.
The girls basketball team I coach won our season opener yesterday afternoon and then the old-man's softball team I play on won our league championship last night, so I was feeling pretty jubilant until I started watching the election results.
But I did all I could do - even held my nose and voted for Hillary - so now I'll be a big boy and live with it. I don't have a choice. Despite my wife saying she wants to move to Canada, we're not going anywhere. We probably won't even leave North Carolina, which has erased a century of progressive progress in the last 4 years.
So I'm going to try to look at the few bright sides:
1. I like to think we have seen the last of the Clintons. Hillary couldn't beat an unknown rookie whose name sounded like Osama in 2008, and she couldn't beat one of the most unpopular people on the planet in 2016. She's toast, and she can take her douchebag husband with her.
2. This should open the Dems' eyes to see they can't just throw anybody on the presidential ballot and rely on the minority vote. They need to start tapping into their pool of younger potential stars that progressive whites, minorities, women, Millennials, etc can get behind - more like Obama, less like Clinton. It will be interesting to see how the Cory Bookers, the Julian Castros, the Eric Garcettis, etc, progress as political leaders.
3. This totally exposed the religious right as the hypocrites they are. Has there EVER, EVER, EVER been a less-Christian, major-party political candidate? Even if one offers Jefferson and a couple others from that era as atheists, they weren't blatantly, undeniably immoral, like this guy. And yet the Christians fell all over each other to vote him in. Here in NC, the GOP passed the infamous "bathroom law" because, they said, it would prevent perverts pretending to be trans from terrorizing their daughters in bathrooms and locker rooms. And then, for president, they back an actual pervert who literally bragged about spying on their daughters in the locker room!! Classic.
Finally, I'll be curious to see if the Dems in Congress have the nuts to wage the kind of stonewalling, obstructing and fillibustering attack that the Republicans did with Obama. My guess is that they don't.
All right. End of screed. I'd better get started on that bomb shelter.
Evangelists will vote for the pro life candidate every time. Nothing hypocritical about that.
Wisconsin has voted Democrat every election since 2008, and NOW we are racist because the WOW counties switched? Michigan, Pennsylvania the same.
You said gullible and pathetic? Hope and change any different?
Bill Clinton was a sexist, did you vote for him?
The media and the elites were smoked last night. The people have spoke. The person for whom laws didn't matter and laws were for little people, lost.
For those of you claiming to move, why don't you move to Mexico? Why is it always Canada or Europe? What is wrong with Mexico?
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 09, 2016, 09:41:21 AM
For those of you claiming to move, why don't you move to Mexico? Why is it always Canada or Europe? What is wrong with Mexico?
What point are you trying to make here?
Quote from: jficke13 on November 09, 2016, 09:31:13 AM
I'm darn proud that even selecting this particular leader, we still have a peaceful transition of power. I'm disappointed with the president that America elected, but I'm not embarrassed to be an American.
I respect that perspective. It is not one I can share.
Clinton forgot the one rule of politics: "All politics are local". It was again the South and the Rust Belt who decided the election. Trump was indeed the better campaigner.
Leader? TBD
Btw, I voted for neither
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 09, 2016, 09:40:11 AM
Evangelists will vote for the pro life candidate every time. Nothing hypocritical about that.
Wisconsin has voted Democrat every election since 2008, and NOW we are racist because the WOW counties switched? Michigan, Pennsylvania the same.
You said gullible and pathetic? Hope and change any different?
Bill Clinton was a sexist, did you vote for him?
Will evangelists also vote for the pervert every time, too?
I didn't say Wisconsin was racist. I try not to talk in such broad terms. I'm saying Trump made it mainstream to be racist again, in Wisconsin and everywhere else. The leader of the Republican Party, a respectable Wisconson conservative named Paul Ryan (you might have heard of him), rebuked Trump for comments that were "the textbook definition of racism."
Obama was different because we did not already know him to be all the horrific things every one of us knows Trump is. There was mystery to Obama, hope for something different. Think about the way Obama introduced himself to America: with one of the most uplifting, inspiring, inclusive speeches ever made. And now think about the many ways Trump introduced himself to America, and specifically the way he opened his campaign: by calling Mexicans rapists.
For all of Bubba's foibles, and there were many, he never boasted publicly about getting to see pageant contest entrants as young as 15 undressing. He never bragged publicly about getting to grab women by their hoo-has. He never publicly said: "I think that putting a wife to work is a very dangerous thing. If I come home -- and I don't want to sound too much like a chauvinist -- but when I come home and dinner's not ready, I go through the roof."
To borrow from Ryan, that's the textbook definition of sexism.
The United States is truly the greatest political experiment in history.
I have never felt ashamed to be an American. People who cannot comprehend just how special is America are the true 'deplorables.'
I fought and bled for this country under three different CinCs and I would gladly do so in January 2017 as I did in January 2009. America is not about the man in the office but the office itself.
Quote from: LAZER on November 09, 2016, 09:28:23 AM
Yup, just like everyone did fine the last 8 years.
Respect da process, hey?
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 09, 2016, 09:41:21 AM
The media and the elites were smoked last night. The people have spoke. The person for whom laws didn't matter and laws were for little people, lost.
For those of you claiming to move, why don't you move to Mexico? Why is it always Canada or Europe? What is wrong with Mexico?
Yes the people have spoken and Hillary won the popular vote, unfortunately the country doesn't work that way
If not for Bubba's pecker tracks on Monica's blue dress, she'd be 6 ft. under now, ai na?
The pollsters who projected a Hillary victory also believe team FT% is important to a team's success.
PS-"I skipped class bc of my accent bc Trump won"...not sure whether to laugh or puke. C'mon, bud
I saw a comparison of four maps of the elections in 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000 (sorry, having trouble finding on google). If a county voted for one candidate by a large enough margin (I think the cut off was 20 or 30 points), it got colored in red or blue respectively. In 2000, there were some counties colored in, but most of the country wasn't, i.e. most counties were split pretty closely. The map grew increasingly red and blue in the areas you would expect with each successive election. Geographically, the country is becoming ideologically polarized. Thinking of it that way, it becomes more believable that people could be so stunned. Many (myself included) literally did not run into Trump supporters, certainly not in droves, certainly not in numbers that made me think he had a ghost of a chance.
Wherever you live, strive to seek out differing opinions. Provide differing opinions of your own. Engage with respect. Learn about those you disagree with. Combat the bubble-mentality.
Quote from: keefe on November 09, 2016, 10:02:42 AM
The United States is truly the greatest political experiment in history.
I have never felt ashamed to be an American. People who cannot comprehend just how special is America are the true 'deplorables.'
I fought and bled for this country under three different CinCs and I would gladly do so in January 2017 as I did in January 2009. America is not about the man in the office but the office itself.
Unless of course the man in office has no regard for the office itself, or the institutions that allow the American experiment to unfold. You folks are going to really regret this.
Trump won because his supporters were more motivated. Who motivated them? Hillary Clinton. She summed up people not inclined to vote for her as racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, irredeemable deplorables. A lot of Republicans came "home" when they heard such a morally flawed candidate call out such a large swath of Americans as her inferior. It didn't moved me from the "none of the above" column but I think it moved a lot of wavering minds and motivated those already committed.
Quote from: warriorchick on November 09, 2016, 08:24:25 AM
And I don't know why people were so shocked that the polls were so wrong. Who is going to admit that they are going to vote for Trump, even as the lesser of two evils, when you are immediately going to be labeled an ignorant bigot?
I said for a long time that I didn't know who would win, and I'll admit I'm a bit surprised (but not shocked). I also said that the polls would be off and Trump would outperform his polls. I find it amusing that pollsters last night were saying, "we're going to have to figure out what happened here."
Tip for the press and pollsters: you're not going to get accurate poll results if you say, "Anyone who votes for candidate X is a racist, sexist, homophobic deplorable. By the way, who are you planning to vote for?"
Quote from: MU82 on November 09, 2016, 10:00:27 AM
Obama was different because we did not already know him to be all the horrific things every one of us knows Trump is. There was mystery to Obama, hope for something different.
And therein lies the reason this election turned the way it did. This is
exactly why people voted for Trump.
Obviously, people are going to disagree strongly about a lot of things in this election. But it's the Democrats insistence that Trump's popularity was solely a function of racism/sexism/xenophobia that cost them the White House. Trump's election is all about "hope for something different."
Quote from: Lennys Tap on November 09, 2016, 10:33:43 AM
Trump won because his supporters were more motivated. Who motivated them? Hillary Clinton. She summed up people not inclined to vote for her as racist, misogynistic, xenophobic, irredeemable deplorables. A lot of Republicans came "home" when they heard such a morally flawed candidate call out such a large swath of Americans as her inferior. It didn't moved me from the "none of the above" column but I think it moved a lot of wavering minds and motivated those already committed.
In all fairness ... that's not exactly what she said, and she's not entirely wrong. Polls do show that a not insignificant portion of Trump's support came from people with racist, misogynistic or xenophobic viewpoints (see more below). I think it's wrong and unfair to paint all or even a majority of Trump supporters with that brush, but it's likewise denying reality not to address the fact his campaign intentionally stirred up and benefited from those viewpoints.
That said, it was an exceptionally stupid thing to say publicly, right on par with Mitt's "47 percent" remark.
According to a Economist/YouGov national poll conducted in January, nearly 20 percent of Trump's supporters say they do not approve of the Emancipation Proclamation, Abraham Lincoln's executive order that freed the slaves in the Southern states during the Civil War.
Of the 2,000 U.S. adults who participated in the poll, 13 percent said they either slightly or strongly disagreed with Lincoln, while 17 percent said they weren't sure.
The same survey found that a third of Trump's supporters believe that Japanese-American internment during World War II was a good idea.
According to a Public Policy Polling survey conducted earlier this month, a third of Trump's supporters in South Carolina say they would "support barring gays and lesbians from entering the country."https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-supporters-free-slaves-poll-193745865.html
Quote from: Babybluejeans on November 09, 2016, 10:26:53 AM
Unless of course the man in office has no regard for the office itself, or the institutions that allow the American experiment to unfold. You folks are going to really regret this.
You have no basis for this statement other than hubris and angst.
There was a similar emotional outcry in 1980 when Dutch was elected. What America got over the next 8 years was some of the more inspiring and effective leadership we have ever enjoyed as a nation.
In November 1980 the prime rate was over 20%, unemployment was double digits, our military capability had been gutted, Soviet expansionism was a reality, and a third rate power had seized sovereign American soil and was holding our embassy staff hostage.
Before the end of that decade both the prime lending rate and unemployment were below 4%, our nation's military had been rebuilt, and the Berlin Wall came down as the Soviet Union crumbled.
Our hostages were released by Iran as Dutch Reagan was being sworn in. Apologists would have you believe it was one final dig at Carter by the mullahs. Far more likely, they feared the new CinC as a man of commitment and righteousness.
People saw Reagan's election as a sign of the Apocalypse; those same folks, and fellow travelers, are saying that once more. As Dutch Reagan once said, "Now there you go again."
Quick request for my fellow Scoopers (and the Mods):
Let's keep this thread civil, and let's keep the election discussion completely limited to this thread.
Thanks Mods, for not locking this. I think it's a great thing for this community -- with varying viewpoints -- to be able to discuss this truly historical event. Hopefully everyone will keep it right here and be nice and we can continue the discussion.
Quote from: keefe on November 09, 2016, 10:02:42 AM
The United States is truly the greatest political experiment in history.
I have never felt ashamed to be an American. People who cannot comprehend just how special is America are the true 'deplorables.'
I fought and bled for this country under three different CinCs and I would gladly do so in January 2017 as I did in January 2009. America is not about the man in the office but the office itself.
Well said and thanks for your service, always always a sacrifice to serve in the US Military. I know what members in my extended family do for little pay in the military. Lots of risk, lots of sand, time away, bad living condtions, and horror (at war, or even humanitarian missions after natural disasters; we ask a lot of the same people over and over to experience and live through a lot of "difficulty" if they are fortunate enough to live through it). Amazing that anyone will sign up for that... truly great people that keep us safe and allow us to continue to exist as a country and debate who should be president and how terrible one party is versus the other party.
Whenever I want to complain about something in my life, I stop. I always remember how great I have it as to where and when I was born... how much more lucky could I have been? The USA changed the world and continues to be a leader for democracy.. the USA is still a place of opportunity...I also remember when I want to complain that there are literally 6 Billion or more people in front of me in the complaint line with more pressing grievances. I should include everyone who serves in the military in front of me as well, and get back further in the complaint line.
Our founders were diverse with different view points, fought it out in nasty political battles, and that made us a better country... If either of the extremes dominated during our founding, we would have been a weaker country and we probably wouldn't be a country today... the same can be said today, we need different views to continue to succeed... different party's to come in to power and not have one view point dominate...
If you pick a political side, expect to lose some and win some, and that makes us stronger not worse off.
And in case anyone somehow reads this as supporting one candidate or party over another or a two party system, that is not at all what I'm saying. Respect what we have, it is not perfect and is not meant to be perfect... almost everyone knows what Churchill said, in paraphrase: Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all of the other forms of government.
Quote from: keefe on November 09, 2016, 10:02:42 AM
The United States is truly the greatest political experiment in history.
I have never felt ashamed to be an American. People who cannot comprehend just how special is America are the true 'deplorables.'
I fought and bled for this country under three different CinCs and I would gladly do so in January 2017 as I did in January 2009. America is not about the man in the office but the office itself.
Agreed. We live in a great country. Several times in my lifetime we have had what has amounted to a bloodless revolution. That is truly remarkable, and ours truly is a remarkable system of government. I've said the same both when I was disappointed by the results and when I was pleased by the results.
I'll admit that Trump scares me, but I believe we'll be fine. Today, as always, I pray for our country and its leaders.
nm
Quote from: keefe on November 09, 2016, 10:02:42 AM
The United States is truly the greatest political experiment in history.
I have never felt ashamed to be an American. People who cannot comprehend just how special is America are the true 'deplorables.'
I fought and bled for this country under three different CinCs and I would gladly do so in January 2017 as I did in January 2009. America is not about the man in the office but the office itself.
The fact that the American people voted this particular man into that office and what it should represent is a travesty. Just my opinion.
Obviously I respect your service to this country.
Quote from: Benny B on November 08, 2016, 11:57:47 PM
I didn't vote for any candidate on the ballot, but I'll tell you, I sure am enjoying all of the pundits, experts, pollsters, party officials, etc. writhe in intellectual agony/defeat right now.
All y'all who cast a ballot today - whether you voted D or R - every single one of you is responsible for this mess. So own it. Unless, of course, you honestly voted for Hillary or Donald believing that they are truly representative of who you are... in which case, you're not responsible, you're just a schmuck.
So can we start talking about compulsory voting in the US yet? Or is everyone still afraid about having elections where candidates campaign on issues rather than turnout?
I'm disgusted and not the least bit happy with the results last night, but I live in the country I love with the electoral system we have which means I live with the results it spits out and life will go on.
I'm with you on compulsory voting. I heard in Australia, who uses it, that you don't have to vote you just have to show up at polling station to say your abstaining or fined $1,500. I don't think it's good that we are going to have a popular vote winner again who lost the electoral vote for the second time in 16 years.
Quote from: keefe on November 09, 2016, 10:43:18 AM
You have no basis for this statement other than hubris and angst.
There was a similar emotional outcry in 1980 when Dutch was elected. What America got over the next 8 years was some of the more inspiring and effective leadership we have ever enjoyed as a nation.
In November 1980 the prime rate was over 20%, unemployment was double digits, our military capability had been gutted, Soviet expansionism was a reality, and a third rate power had seized sovereign American soil and was holding our embassy staff hostage.
Before the end of that decade both the prime lending rate and unemployment were below 4%, our nation's military had been rebuilt, and the Berlin Wall came down as the Soviet Union crumbled.
Our hostages were released by Iran as Dutch Reagan was being sworn in. Apologists would have you believe it was one final dig at Carter by the mullahs. Far more likely, they feared the new CinC as a man of commitment and righteousness.
People saw Reagan's election as a sign of the Apocalypse; those same folks, and fellow travelers, are saying that once more. As Dutch Reagan once said, "Now there you go again."
No, I have Trump's
entire platform as a basis to support the statement that he disregards the office and the institutions that undergird our society. He wasn't elected on a platform of respect for law or institutions--or, for that matter, decency. Why would we expect that to change now?
Reagan and 1980 are like this election in that there was an election with people. On every other count, it's a false analogy.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 09, 2016, 11:03:26 AM
I'm disgusted and not the least bit happy with the results last night, but I live in the country I love with the electoral system we have which means I live with the results it spits out and life will go on.
I'm with you on compulsory voting. I heard in Australia, who uses it, that you don't have to vote you just have to show up at polling station to say your abstaining or fined $1,500. I don't think it's good that we are going to have a popular vote winner again who lost the electoral vote for the second time in 16 years.
This cannot be understated. Clearly the population distribution amongst states no longer reflects the electoral votes each has to give. If this really is the standard barer for democracy then it should be popular vote over electoral vote.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 09, 2016, 11:03:26 AM
I'm disgusted and not the least bit happy with the results last night, but I live in the country I love with the electoral system we have which means I live with the results it spits out and life will go on.
I'm with you on compulsory voting. I heard in Australia, who uses it, that you don't have to vote you just have to show up at polling station to say your abstaining or fined $1,500. I don't think it's good that we are going to have a popular vote winner again who lost the electoral vote for the second time in 16 years.
The popular vote isn't what the candidates are trying to win. The popular vote would have come out differently if that was what the candidates were trying to win (may have been in Trump's favor or a bigger margin for Clinton, who knows?)
I think in some states the electoral college does discourage voting, though. If you vote red in a strong blue state or vice versa, you may not bother voting since you know it won't matter.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 09, 2016, 11:03:26 AM
I'm disgusted and not the least bit happy with the results last night, but I live in the country I love with the electoral system we have which means I live with the results it spits out and life will go on.
I'm with you on compulsory voting. I heard in Australia, who uses it, that you don't have to vote you just have to show up at polling station to say your abstaining or fined $1,500. I don't think it's good that we are going to have a popular vote winner again who lost the electoral vote for the second time in 16 years.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 09, 2016, 11:09:41 AM
This cannot be understated. Clearly the population distribution amongst states no longer reflects the electoral votes each has to give. If this really is the standard barer for democracy then it should be popular vote over electoral vote.
If your candidate won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, would you be saying the same thing?
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 09, 2016, 11:03:26 AM
[...]
I'm with you on compulsory voting. I heard in Australia, who uses it, that you don't have to vote you just have to show up at polling station to say your abstaining or fined $1,500. I don't think it's good that we are going to have a popular vote winner again who lost the electoral vote for the second time in 16 years.
I'm sorry but I cannot square compulsory voting with the 1st amendment. The state cannot compel speech. Voting is speech. Not-voting is speech. Therefore, the state cannot compel voting (or use state-action to punish someone for failing to show up and saying they are abstaining).
This isn't a close legal question either. If people are serious about compulsory voting, that would require a constitutional amendment.
Shouldnt this be in the politics board? lol
Thanks mods for the window here to lets folks chat on this. A presidential election is a big deal, and its nice of you to permit the venting.
Trump won Texas easily, but Harris county (very large area, includes all of Houston) went democratic sweep including about 20 judgeships, all dems. Most of Our Texas cities are blue, but our state is red, go figure.
One of the more interesting red blue splits is to see (on last night's TV coverage)...blue urban america compared to red rural america. Those electoral maps poignantly showed this same split nearly in all 50 states . Interesting.
I am astounded at the outcome of this election,as many of us are. I hope people can be civil, and respect the office. I hope the office deserves our respect as well. I think that everybody that has an opinion on this election and the president elect needs to get involved no matter what side of the aisle you find yourself. Let your congressmen and senators know where you stand, do this often. I am pleased with the apparent repudiation of the "establishment" I don't want people to fear. God Bless America and God Bless all of you.
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 09, 2016, 09:41:21 AM
The media and the elites were smoked last night. The people have spoke.
Do you believe the people spoke in 2008? Was that also a referendum on what the American people want in a government? Were you onboard with any decisions that government made because the people spoke?
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 09, 2016, 11:10:35 AM
If your candidate won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, would you be saying the same thing?
Yes, I would. I don't want to see the Electoral College eliminated either. I honestly don't know what the answer is here? But the optics don't look right for it to happen twice in 16 years.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 09, 2016, 11:10:35 AM
If your candidate won the electoral vote but lost the popular vote, would you be saying the same thing?
Would not be broadcasting that opinion but I'd damn well be thinking it.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 09, 2016, 11:31:35 AM
Yes, I would. I don't want to see the Electoral College eliminated either. I honestly don't know what the answer is here? But the optics don't look right for it to happen twice in 16 years.
I read a big long form piece of journalism that was talking about the decades long process of reducing the power and influence of elites and political insiders and that the end of the road is that a bomb thrower like Ted Cruz can abruptly rise to prominence in the Senate (getting rid of the incentives for being a good party soldier etc.) and the consistent rhetoric that they, as in insiders, are to blame, that the "will of the people" is being ignored. It is interesting in the context of the framing of our government was designed to be very Athenian in insulating the government from the "will of the people." No direct election of senators, the electoral college, etc., the objective was to put elites in charge, but that has been systematically dismantled over the past 50ish years.
Our current result is in no small part an outgrowth of that trend.
Found the article, it's long, but a very good read:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/
"Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system's capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries' influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself."
Quote from: jficke13 on November 09, 2016, 11:54:35 AM
Found the article, it's long, but a very good read:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/07/how-american-politics-went-insane/485570/
"Chaos syndrome is a chronic decline in the political system's capacity for self-organization. It begins with the weakening of the institutions and brokers—political parties, career politicians, and congressional leaders and committees—that have historically held politicians accountable to one another and prevented everyone in the system from pursuing naked self-interest all the time. As these intermediaries' influence fades, politicians, activists, and voters all become more individualistic and unaccountable. The system atomizes. Chaos becomes the new normal—both in campaigns and in the government itself."
I'm an
Atlantic subscriber and I remember reading that article. It's a very good read. Is that the same article that said "transparency" is part of the problem?
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 09, 2016, 11:59:01 AM
I'm an Atlantic subscriber and I remember reading that article. It's a very good read. Is that the same article that said "transparency" is part of the problem?
Perhaps?
"We reformed closed-door negotiations. As recently as the early 1970s, congressional committees could easily retreat behind closed doors and members could vote on many bills anonymously, with only the final tallies reported. Federal advisory committees, too, could meet off the record. Understandably, in the wake of Watergate, those practices came to be viewed as suspect. Today, federal law, congressional rules, and public expectations have placed almost all formal deliberations and many informal ones in full public view. One result is greater transparency, which is good. But another result is that finding space for delicate negotiations and candid deliberations can be difficult. Smoke-filled rooms, whatever their disadvantages, were good for brokering complex compromises in which nothing was settled until everything was settled; once gone, they turned out to be difficult to replace. In public, interest groups and grandstanding politicians can tear apart a compromise before it is halfway settled.
Despite promising to televise negotiations over health-care reform, President Obama went behind closed doors with interest groups to put the package together; no sane person would have negotiated in full public view. In 2013, Congress succeeded in approving a modest bipartisan budget deal in large measure because the House and Senate Budget Committee chairs were empowered to "figure it out themselves, very, very privately," as one Democratic aide told Jill Lawrence for a 2015 Brookings report. TV cameras, recorded votes, and public markups do increase transparency, but they come at the cost of complicating candid conversations. "The idea that Washington would work better if there were TV cameras monitoring every conversation gets it exactly wrong," the Democratic former Senate majority leader Tom Daschle wrote in 2014, in his foreword to the book City of Rivals. "The lack of opportunities for honest dialogue and creative give-and-take lies at the root of today's dysfunction.""
This is a worthy read/analysis, if you have the time or interest.
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/democrats-trump-and-the-ongoing-dangerous-refusal-to-learn-the-lesson-of-brexit/
But human beings are not going to follow and obey the exact people they most blame for their suffering. They're going to do exactly the opposite: purposely defy them and try to impose punishment in retaliation. Their instruments for retaliation are Brexit and Trump. Those are their agents, dispatched on a mission of destruction: aimed at a system and culture that they regard, not without reason, as rife with corruption and, above all else, contempt for them and their welfare.
After the Brexit vote, I wrote an article comprehensively detailing these dynamics, which I won't repeat here but hope those interested will read. The title conveys the crux: "Brexit Is Only the Latest Proof of the Insularity and Failure of Western Establishment Institutions." That analysis was inspired by a short, incredibly insightful, and now-more-relevant-than-ever post-Brexit Facebook note by The Los Angeles Times' Vincent Bevins, who wrote that "both Brexit and Trumpism are the very, very wrong answers to legitimate questions that urban elites have refused to ask for 30 years"; in particular, "since the 1980s the elites in rich countries have overplayed their hand, taking all the gains for themselves and just covering their ears when anyone else talks, and now they are watching in horror as voters revolt."
Quote from: MU82 on November 09, 2016, 08:31:26 AM
Hillary lost because she was a horribly flawed candidate and because she couldn't energize enough minorities and women to vote for her. She lost because she made some terrible mistakes - if they even were "mistakes" - with the email server. She lost because America is sick of the Clintons. She lost because the vast majority of Americans considered her untrustworthy. She had near-record unfavorables (of course, having even worse unfavorables didn't prevent her opponent from winning!).
Trump won because Americans wanted change for change sake. He won because a large swath of America is gullible and pathetic.
Think about this man. He's outwardly racist -- it's not his "fault" that every radical racist group supported him, but he certainly didn't push back on that, and in fact, he hired an avowed racist as his campaign CEO. He's an admitted sexist, an admitted sexual abuser, an admitted pervert who bragged about being able to watch 15-year-old Teen USA contestants in various states of undress.
He has zero knowledge of anything beyond our borders and no intellectual curiosity. He brazenly refused to show his tax returns. PolitiFact said that more than 70% of what he said during the campaign was either "mostly false," "false" or "pants on fire." He wants to spread nukes around the world and has threatened to use them. He has offered few, if any, detailed policies. He is exceedingly vindictive; it will be interesting to see how he engages with the many Republicans who repudiated him.
He won because he did a brilliant job of appealing to the "deplorables" ... and enough non-deplorables to get over the top.
He won because he was right about the election being rigged; he was just wrong about the "rig-ee." The combination of the Russian hacks being leaked through Wikileaks and Comey's outrageously awful handling of the email situation -- all in the campaign's final two weeks -- made things very difficult for Clinton. Of course, those situations wouldn't have existed had Clinton not committed her multiple faux pas.
Our VP-elect denies science. He's a bible-thumping evolution denier who thinks God actually created the world in six days, and did so only a few thousand years ago: the classic "Jesus rode dinosaurs" guy. Disavows anything to do with climate change. Wants to deny women control of their bodies and futures. In many ways, I fear him more than I fear Trump.
In the end, more than half of America was bamboozled by a racist, sexist, bombastic snake-oil salesman. How embarrassing. We are the laughingstock of the world.
Look, as long as Trump doesn't blow up the world, this probably won't affect me personally. I'm white, I'm not rich but I am financially comfortable, I've got a house, I've got a Sugar Mama. I sure wouldn't want to be anything but a white male under a Trump presidency, though, especially with the GOP retaining control of the Senate. 50+ years of work on women's rights, black rights, etc, are in jeopardy.
Of course, Mrs. MU82 and I are probably going to lose about a year's worth of salary in the stock market today, but this too shall pass. Something fairly similar happened after Brexit, and the market recovered fairly quickly.
The girls basketball team I coach won our season opener yesterday afternoon and then the old-man's softball team I play on won our league championship last night, so I was feeling pretty jubilant until I started watching the election results.
But I did all I could do - even held my nose and voted for Hillary - so now I'll be a big boy and live with it. I don't have a choice. Despite my wife saying she wants to move to Canada, we're not going anywhere. We probably won't even leave North Carolina, which has erased a century of progressive progress in the last 4 years.
So I'm going to try to look at the few bright sides:
1. I like to think we have seen the last of the Clintons. Hillary couldn't beat an unknown rookie whose name sounded like Osama in 2008, and she couldn't beat one of the most unpopular people on the planet in 2016. She's toast, and she can take her douchebag husband with her.
2. This should open the Dems' eyes to see they can't just throw anybody on the presidential ballot and rely on the minority vote. They need to start tapping into their pool of younger potential stars that progressive whites, minorities, women, Millennials, etc can get behind - more like Obama, less like Clinton. It will be interesting to see how the Cory Bookers, the Julian Castros, the Eric Garcettis, etc, progress as political leaders.
3. This totally exposed the religious right as the hypocrites they are. Has there EVER, EVER, EVER been a less-Christian, major-party political candidate? Even if one offers Jefferson and a couple others from that era as atheists, they weren't blatantly, undeniably immoral, like this guy. And yet the Christians fell all over each other to vote him in. Here in NC, the GOP passed the infamous "bathroom law" because, they said, it would prevent perverts pretending to be trans from terrorizing their daughters in bathrooms and locker rooms. And then, for president, they back an actual pervert who literally bragged about spying on their daughters in the locker room!! Classic.
Finally, I'll be curious to see if the Dems in Congress have the nuts to wage the kind of stonewalling, obstructing and fillibustering attack that the Republicans did with Obama. My guess is that they don't.
All right. End of screed. I'd better get started on that bomb shelter.
Thanks MU82 for summing up what a lot of us are feeling today.
As a person who has devoted my life to science, progress and educating our youth, I fell particularly demoralized today. We elected a man who does not believe in man's affect on the environment; and a VP who doesn't even believe in evolution.
I feel this election was a direct attack on science, women and minorities. I will fully support our president, but can't help feeling angry and ashamed (of our country) today. I will not post on this beyond this post, because it is all over now, today we have to find a way to move on together.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 09, 2016, 11:31:35 AM
Yes, I would. I don't want to see the Electoral College eliminated either. I honestly don't know what the answer is here? But the optics don't look right for it to happen twice in 16 years.
That only happened because a Republican won and it came as a result of super-liberal California.
Hillary won CA by over 2.5 million votes. That means Trump won the remaining 49 states by 2.3 million votes.
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 544,000 but Bush won the non-California states by nearly 2 million votes.
I'm not saying that California's votes should be discounted, but fear of this type of skew in votes was a main contributor to the electoral college being created in the first place. It's not perfect but it's better than just a straight popular vote (IMO).
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 09, 2016, 12:49:17 PM
That only happened because a Republican won and it came as a result of super-liberal California.
Hillary won CA by over 2.5 million votes. That means Trump won the remaining 49 states by 2.3 million votes.
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 544,000 but Bush won the non-California states by nearly 2 million votes.
I'm not saying that California's votes should be discounted, but fear of this type of skew in votes was a main contributor to the electoral college being created in the first place. It's not perfect but it's better than just a straight popular vote (IMO).
So it's those peoples fault that they don't live in a battleground state then? This is why the Electoral college is idiotic. Right now my vote mattered more when I was living in Wisconsin than living in Illinois, why should I bother voting in a Presidential election? And old people wonder why the youth are so uninterested in voting. If the federal government was truly libertarian like it was created to be then it'd make sense to have each state have delegates based on their population but since the federal government is far from what it was originally intended as the overall population should matter more.
I'm sorry I don't want to end up in any arguments here. Congrats to you righties, I'm thankful I have dual citizenship and can dip out of here at will.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 09, 2016, 12:49:17 PM
That only happened because a Republican won and it came as a result of super-liberal California.
Hillary won CA by over 2.5 million votes. That means Trump won the remaining 49 states by 2.3 million votes.
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 544,000 but Bush won the non-California states by nearly 2 million votes.
I'm not saying that California's votes should be discounted, but fear of this type of skew in votes was a main contributor to the electoral college being created in the first place. It's not perfect but it's better than just a straight popular vote (IMO).
This doesn't make any sense. By discounting individual votes in California, the Electoral College skews the votes in the other states and gives them heavier weight. Why does this make sense? The whole point of a popular vote is that each vote is counted as it should be: equally.
Quote from: MerrittsMustache on November 09, 2016, 12:49:17 PM
That only happened because a Republican won and it came as a result of super-liberal California.
Hillary won CA by over 2.5 million votes. That means Trump won the remaining 49 states by 2.3 million votes.
In 2000, Gore won the popular vote by 544,000 but Bush won the non-California states by nearly 2 million votes.
I'm not saying that California's votes should be discounted, but fear of this type of skew in votes was a main contributor to the electoral college being created in the first place. It's not perfect but it's better than just a straight popular vote (IMO).
Merritt you can't do that. Let's sub Texas state for California in your hypothesis?
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 09, 2016, 12:58:35 PM
So it's those peoples fault that they don't live in a battleground state then? This is why the Electoral college is idiotic. Right now my vote mattered more when I was living in Wisconsin than living in Illinois, why should I bother voting in a Presidential election? And old people wonder why the youth are so uninterested in voting. If the federal government was truly libertarian like it was created to be then it'd make sense to have each state have delegates based on their population but since the federal government is far from what it was originally intended as the overall population should matter more.
I'm sorry I don't want to end up in any arguments here. Congrats to you righties, I'm thankful I have dual citizenship and can dip out of here at will.
Having a popular vote would mean the voice of the minority is never heard. This would mean Midwestern states like Wisconsin Illinois and Minnesota with small populations would have no say in government policy. That's why the electoral college was built. It's a combination between a popular vote and a representative vote.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 09, 2016, 12:58:35 PM
So it's those peoples fault that they don't live in a battleground state then? This is why the Electoral college is idiotic. Right now my vote mattered more when I was living in Wisconsin than living in Illinois, why should I bother voting in a Presidential election?
Difficult problem to fix. But, you should recognize that the point you're making could be viewed as diminishing the impact of the popular vote argument. How many Trump supporters in Illinois didn't bother to vote? New York? California? How many Clinton supporters stayed home in Texas? Missouri? Determining who would win in a popular vote isn't really as simple as just looking at the popular vote. People vote based on the rules in place. As you've pointed out, that removes the incentive to vote for some people in states that are clearly leaning one way or the other.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 09, 2016, 01:03:30 PM
Merritt you can't do that. Let's sub Texas state for California in your hypothesis?
That's not a hypothesis. It's what happened.
Trump won Texas by 820,000 votes. That's about 1/3 the difference of CA. Remove Texas and Hillary wins the popular vote by ~1M.
What's your point? I'm not trying to stir the pot or start an argument. I'm simply providing facts. UnleashWally and StillAWarrior have good posts on this issue.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 09, 2016, 11:03:26 AMI don't think it's good that we are going to have a popular vote winner again who lost the electoral vote for the second time in 16 years.
I think we probably should get used to that. The urban/rural split will continue to grow, and as it grows so will the likelihood of an electoral/popular split. And, frankly, attempting to change that may well make it worse because it will be akin to telling the majority of the states that they should have no say in who is in the White House.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on November 09, 2016, 01:06:40 PM
Difficult problem to fix. But, you should recognize that the point you're making could be viewed as diminishing the impact of the popular vote argument. How many Trump supporters in Illinois didn't bother to vote? New York? California? How many Clinton supporters stayed home in Texas? Missouri? Determining who would win in a popular vote isn't really as simple as just looking at the popular vote. People vote based on the rules in place. As you've pointed out, that removes the incentive to vote for some people in states that are clearly leaning one way or the other.
I favor the electoral college system, but not the winner take all from each state. I would like each electoral vote go to the winner of each congressional district and the remaining two go to the state wide winner. I think this would mitigate the influence of big money as it would have to be spread over all 435 districts. Though I must say big money did not seem to help Hillary who out spent Trump at least this cycle.
Quote from: #UnleashWally on November 09, 2016, 01:05:19 PM
Having a popular vote would mean the voice of the minority is never heard. This would mean Midwestern states like Wisconsin Illinois and Minnesota with small populations would have no say in government policy. That's why the electoral college was built. It's a combination between a popular vote and a representative vote.
Again, this is a twisting of logic. With a popular vote for president, people in every state would have exactly the same voice. Indeed, with a popular vote, the state has no role at all. So it wouldn't matter if you live in Minnesota or California because state borders aren't relevant-it evens the playing field. Think of it like us voting as a single country rather than as a collection of different states with different weight attached to each.
Anyway, the point is that a popular vote gives the same weight to each vote. That's why people consider it the most fair.
Also, giving voice to small states is not why the electoral college was built (the Senate was designed to do that). Instead, it was to protect the people from themselves. The Founders were afraid giving citizens the popular vote would put too much power in the hands of the people. Mission not accomplished, as demonstrated last night.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on November 09, 2016, 01:25:30 PM
I favor the electoral college system, but not the winner take all from each state. I would like each electoral vote go to the winner of each congressional district and the remaining two go to the state wide winner. I think this would mitigate the influence of big money as it would have to be spread over all 435 districts. Though I must say big money did not seem to help Hillary who out spent Trump at least this cycle.
I'd be interested to see modeling of how this would look. I honestly don't know. Would it just end up mirroring the house? It would be interesting to see what would happen in some of the states that the parties count on. California wouldn't be an auto 55 for Dems, and Texas wouldn't be an auto 38 for the GOP.
Quote from: #UnleashWally on November 09, 2016, 01:05:19 PM
Having a popular vote would mean the voice of the minority is never heard. This would mean Midwestern states like Wisconsin Illinois and Minnesota with small populations would have no say in government policy. That's why the electoral college was built. It's a combination between a popular vote and a representative vote.
I'm confused let's take this election or 2000 are you arguing that it's a good thing the person with less votes wins? I'm just arguing that each vote should be considered equal or that the House of Representatives should be much more proportionately split up and the senate should not be included. It's BS that one of the handful of people in wyoming have essentially three times the power with their vote than say Maryland where it's actually proportionate to population.
Here's what I am using
http://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes
Quote from: StillAWarrior on November 09, 2016, 01:32:06 PM
I'd be interested to see modeling of how this would look. I honestly don't know. Would it just end up mirroring the house? It would be interesting to see what would happen in some of the states that the parties count on. California wouldn't be an auto 55 for Dems, and Texas wouldn't be an auto 38 for the GOP.
First you'd have to find a way to eliminate gerrymandering if you want to use Congressional Districts. Regardless, we should still find away to eliminate gerrymandering.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 09, 2016, 01:43:47 PM
I'm confused let's take this election or 2000 are you arguing that it's a good thing the person with less votes wins? I'm just arguing that each vote should be considered equal or that the House of Representatives should be much more proportionately split up and the senate should not be included. It's BS that one of the handful of people in wyoming have essentially three times the power with their vote than say Maryland where it's actually proportionate to population.
Here's what I am using
http://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes
If it weren't for the electoral college the smaller states would get zero attention. Presidents would make sure that California and New York get everything they want, and f*ck North Dakota with their measly 400,000 voters.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 09, 2016, 01:43:47 PM
I'm confused let's take this election or 2000 are you arguing that it's a good thing the person with less votes wins? I'm just arguing that each vote should be considered equal or that the House of Representatives should be much more proportionately split up and the senate should not be included. It's BS that one of the handful of people in wyoming have essentially three times the power with their vote than say Maryland where it's actually proportionate to population.
Here's what I am using
http://www.fairvote.org/population_vs_electoral_votes
I think one of the biggest issues with relying on a pure popular vote would be a complete focus on cities. Politicians would pander to the cities and the term "flyover country" would take on a whole new meaning.
Quote from: #UnleashWally on November 09, 2016, 01:05:19 PM
Having a popular vote would mean the voice of the minority is never heard. This would mean Midwestern states like Wisconsin Illinois and Minnesota with small populations would have no say in government policy. That's why the electoral college was built. It's a combination between a popular vote and a representative vote.
The electoral college has its positives and negatives, but no, it wasn't built to protect the voice of the minority or even small states. It was built to protect the presidency from an unqualified populist who would sway less educated voters (oops). It was, in fact, created to protect the elites from the masses.
Even backers of the college have to admit it's patently unfair. It makes a vote from a Wyoming resident, for example, far more valuable than one from a California resident.
There are downsides with a purely popular vote as well, of course.
Quote from: keefe on November 09, 2016, 10:43:18 AM
You have no basis for this statement other than hubris and angst.
There was a similar emotional outcry in 1980 when Dutch was elected. What America got over the next 8 years was some of the more inspiring and effective leadership we have ever enjoyed as a nation.
In November 1980 the prime rate was over 20%, unemployment was double digits, our military capability had been gutted, Soviet expansionism was a reality, and a third rate power had seized sovereign American soil and was holding our embassy staff hostage.
Before the end of that decade both the prime lending rate and unemployment were below 4%, our nation's military had been rebuilt, and the Berlin Wall came down as the Soviet Union crumbled.
Our hostages were released by Iran as Dutch Reagan was being sworn in. Apologists would have you believe it was one final dig at Carter by the mullahs. Far more likely, they feared the new CinC as a man of commitment and righteousness.
People saw Reagan's election as a sign of the Apocalypse; those same folks, and fellow travelers, are saying that once more. As Dutch Reagan once said, "Now there you go again."
You and I have had a lot of interesting conversations, Crash, and you know I respect you.
I agree with the spirit of what you say here and in your earlier post. I am not ashamed to be an American but I do believe this election was an embarrassment for America. I think there is a difference between those two things.
The process was manipulated by, among others, Russian hackers, a vindictive Wikileaks honcho, an Access Hollywood video and a clueless FBI director. And the American people elected a vile human being with a hair trigger.
I disagreed with many of Reagan's policies, but he was an honorable man with vision who cared more about America than about himself. That's about as polar opposite to Trump as one can get.
When Carter had a lead in the polls over Reagan, Reagan never threatened to withhold support for the winner, never threatened to bring the system to its knees, never called the system rigged.
IMHO, Reagan would be spinning in his grave to have Trump compared to him in any kind of positive light.
Quote from: warriorchick on November 09, 2016, 01:49:46 PM
If it weren't for the electoral college the smaller states would get zero attention. Presidents would make sure that California and New York get everything they want, and f*ck North Dakota with their measly 400,000 voters.
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
More seriously, though, presidents already ignore smaller states like North Dakota. Trump or Hillary didn't exactly spend a lot of time campaigning in Fargo and Bismarck.
Also, states like North Dakota already have disproportionate representation in the legislature. They'd do just fine without the disproportionate representation in the electoral college.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on November 09, 2016, 01:32:06 PM
I'd be interested to see modeling of how this would look. I honestly don't know. Would it just end up mirroring the house? It would be interesting to see what would happen in some of the states that the parties count on. California wouldn't be an auto 55 for Dems, and Texas wouldn't be an auto 38 for the GOP.
Perhaps, but voters do split their ticket. A Republican could win the district while the Democrat won the Pesidency in that same district. I think one concern is that wards in some states cross congressional districts which would present a challenge in counting.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on November 09, 2016, 01:53:09 PM
I think one of the biggest issues with relying on a pure popular vote would be a complete focus on cities. Politicians would pander to the cities and the term "flyover country" would take on a whole new meaning.
Not necessarily.
Of the 30 largest U.S. metro areas, 14 are in states won by Trump.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 09, 2016, 02:02:39 PM
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
More seriously, though, presidents already ignore smaller states like North Dakota. Trump or Hillary didn't exactly spend a lot of time campaigning in Fargo and Bismarck.
Also, states like North Dakota already have disproportionate representation in the legislature. They'd do just fine without the disproportionate representation in the electoral college.
This
Quote from: StillAWarrior on November 09, 2016, 01:53:09 PM
I think one of the biggest issues with relying on a pure popular vote would be a complete focus on cities. Politicians would pander to the cities and the term "flyover country" would take on a whole new meaning.
Because there are less people. Look if your views are the minority you shouldn't get to control the highest office, that's just not how a realistic democracy works. If you want to keep the electoral college that's perfectly fine but then we have to stop pretending we're the gold standard of democracy and equality because that's simply not true.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on November 09, 2016, 01:06:40 PM
Difficult problem to fix. But, you should recognize that the point you're making could be viewed as diminishing the impact of the popular vote argument. How many Trump supporters in Illinois didn't bother to vote? New York? California? How many Clinton supporters stayed home in Texas? Missouri? Determining who would win in a popular vote isn't really as simple as just looking at the popular vote. People vote based on the rules in place. As you've pointed out, that removes the incentive to vote for some people in states that are clearly leaning one way or the other.
Tricky statement. We could also say, how many Hillary supporters stayed home in WI, Michigan and Pennsylvania because they thought the election there was safe. How many Hillary supporters stayed home in CA, NY, WA because they knew she would win. How many Trump voters stayed home in TX, how many ran out to vote, because they were convinced they could flip Michigan, WI and Pennsylvania.
Popular vote, electoral college, they will all have the problems of people not going out to vote because they think the election was already decided. That was a contributing factor to Brexit and this election. Today there is a lot of regret in WI, Michigan and Pennsylvania amongst people that didn't vote, because they thought Hillary had already won those states.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 09, 2016, 02:09:15 PM
that's just not how a realistic democracy works.
America is not a democracy. It's a representative Republic.
I wish to join the many here thanking the mods for letting this go on.
We all need a place to vent or kibbitz or postulate or whatever after such an incredible election campaign.
And I second those who request we keep it civil and keep it to this thread.
Quote from: MU82 on November 09, 2016, 02:01:28 PM
You and I have had a lot of interesting conversations, Crash, and you know I respect you.
I agree with the spirit of what you say here and in your earlier post. I am not ashamed to be an American but I do believe this election was an embarrassment for America. I think there is a difference between those two things.
The process was manipulated by, among others, Russian hackers, a vindictive Wikileaks honcho, an Access Hollywood video and a clueless FBI director. And the American people elected a vile human being with a hair trigger.
I disagreed with many of Reagan's policies, but he was an honorable man with vision who cared more about America than about himself. That's about as polar opposite to Trump as one can get.
When Carter had a lead in the polls over Reagan, Reagan never threatened to withhold support for the winner, never threatened to bring the system to its knees, never called the system rigged.
IMHO, Reagan would be spinning in his grave to have Trump compared to him in any kind of positive light.
Friends in Canada have been contacting my wife and I and are worried what will happen with the US-Canada relations and also inquiring if we want relocation information.
My Polish in-laws are pissed and think they're screwed and have to fight "Russia" now because Putin thinks Trump won't honor NATO.
Quote from: forgetful on November 09, 2016, 02:14:37 PM
Tricky statement. We could also say, how many Hillary supporters stayed home in WI, Michigan and Pennsylvania because they thought the election there was safe. How many Hillary supporters stayed home in CA, NY, WA because they knew she would win. How many Trump voters stayed home in TX, how many ran out to vote, because they were convinced they could flip Michigan, WI and Pennsylvania.
Absolutely. That's precisely my point. In fact, it's pretty much what I said. Just looking at the raw vote popular numbers is misleading -- or, rather, it
might be. They might represent what would have happened if everyone would have been motivated and able to go out and vote. Then again, they might not. It's impossible to know. The only way the popular vote numbers will be able to reliably show who has the most popular support is if everyone knows going into the election that is what is going to happen. Trump might have performed better if the popular vote was picking the president. Hilllary might have performed better. We'll never know.
Does the new majority have the ability to redistrict, or is that done per a set schedule?
Quote from: StillAWarrior on November 09, 2016, 02:31:06 PM
Absolutely. That's precisely my point. In fact, it's pretty much what I said. Just looking at the raw vote popular numbers is misleading -- or, rather, it might be. They might represent what would have happened if everyone would have been motivated and able to go out and vote. Then again, they might not. It's impossible to know. The only way the popular vote numbers will be able to reliably show who has the most popular support is if everyone knows going into the election that is what is going to happen. Trump might have performed better if the popular vote was picking the president. Hilllary might have performed better. We'll never know.
Interesting question -- would switching from electoral to popular vote fundamentally change voter turnout/apathy?
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 09, 2016, 11:09:41 AM
Clearly the population distribution amongst states no longer reflects the electoral votes each has to give.
Since it is in part based on the number of Representatives each state has, and since that is based on population, it is most certainly reflective.
Quote from: real chili 83 on November 09, 2016, 02:37:40 PM
Does the new majority have the ability to redistrict, or is that done per a set schedule?
Redistricting occurs every 10 years, after the census. Won't happen again until 2021.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 09, 2016, 02:42:39 PM
Since it is in part based on the number of Representatives each state has, and since that is based on population, it is most certainly reflective.
But adding the two extra electoral votes to each state skews the value of individual votes in favor of the residents of smaller states.
Quote from: real chili 83 on November 09, 2016, 02:37:40 PM
Does the new majority have the ability to redistrict, or is that done per a set schedule?
I don't think so. I think they can only redistrict after the 10-year census or if the court orders redistricting for some reason like Florida in 2016. I think the Dems just picked up 4 Congressional seats in Florida after a court ordered redistricting for some legal reason.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 09, 2016, 02:53:04 PM
I don't think so. I think they can only redistrict after the 10-year census or if the court orders redistricting for some reason like Florida in 2016. I think the Dems just picked up 4 Congressional seats in Florida after a court ordered redistricting for some legal reason.
Connecticut re-districted to insure the one congressional district that regularly elected a Republican was split up so that stopped happening after the last census.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 09, 2016, 02:42:39 PM
Since it is in part based on the number of Representatives each state has, and since that is based on population, it is most certainly reflective.
One could argue the least populated states have disproportional electoral votes as:
Every state gets at least three electoral votes, because a state's
number of electors is identical to the total number of its senators and representatives in Congress. Seven states have the minimum three electors.
Washington, D.C., also has three electoral votes, due to the 23rd Amendment, which gave the nation's capital as many electors as the state with the fewest electoral votes.
Quote from: CTWarrior on November 09, 2016, 02:57:37 PM
Connecticut re-districted to insure the one congressional district that regularly elected a Republican was split up so that stopped happening after the last census.
Gerrymandering is an old old practice in this country. Nothing new about that at all.
Quote from: jficke13 on November 09, 2016, 11:18:35 AM
I'm sorry but I cannot square compulsory voting with the 1st amendment. The state cannot compel speech. Voting is speech. Not-voting is speech. Therefore, the state cannot compel voting (or use state-action to punish someone for failing to show up and saying they are abstaining).
This isn't a close legal question either. If people are serious about compulsory voting, that would require a constitutional amendment.
Then amend the god damn constitution if you have to. It's about time we updated our laws. Fix the bear arms thing and throw something in about abortion if you want. Just fu@king fix it.
But I disagree that voting is speech. For one, it's done in private. Two, nobody said you have to vote for a candidate on the ballot, vote for Mickey Mouse or Mia Khalifa if you want. Or write in Monty Brewster.
If voting is speech, then so are income taxes, and last I checked, those were pretty compulsory, too.
Besides, tell me this.... what the hell is wrong with counting every voter instead of every vote?
Quote from: jficke13 on November 09, 2016, 03:01:01 PM
Gerrymandering is an old old practice in this country. Nothing new about that at all.
we got dumped into St. Paul after the last redistricting. It currently sucks.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 09, 2016, 02:51:14 PM
Redistricting occurs every 10 years, after the census. Won't happen again until 2021.
...and is done at the state level by the state legislatures, Govenor or state commission or combination. Congress has no say in redistricting.
Quote from: warriorchick on November 09, 2016, 01:49:46 PM
If it weren't for the electoral college the smaller states would get zero attention. Presidents would make sure that California and New York get everything they want, and f*ck North Dakota with their measly 400,000 voters.
You just confirmed my original post.
Quote from: muwarrior69 on November 09, 2016, 03:13:11 PM
You just confirmed my original post.
Speaking of fu@king states... I can't wait for South Park tonight.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 09, 2016, 02:26:15 PM
Friends in Canada have been contacting my wife and I and are worried what will happen with the US-Canada relations and also inquiring if we want relocation information.
My Polish in-laws are pissed and think they're screwed and have to fight "Russia" now because Putin thinks Trump won't honor NATO.
Nobody really knows what Trump will do which is a deterrent in itself. He has said in the past, Russia isn't going to take Ukraine if he is president, though they are already there under Obama. It will be interesting to see how relations with Russia develop under Trump.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 09, 2016, 02:42:39 PM
Since it is in part based on the number of Representatives each state has, and since that is based on population, it is most certainly reflective.
Ct warrior said what I was going to but more eloquently
Couple good electoral college videos:
https://www.youtube.com/v/OUS9mM8Xbbw
https://www.youtube.com/v/7wC42HgLA4k
Quote from: ChitownSpaceForRent on November 09, 2016, 07:09:12 AM
Then I obviously live in the wrong country. Im tired and embarassed. I didnt go to class today because I didnt want people to hear my accent. Im done with the US, just done. This was just the final straw.
Bye. Hope you like it in Oz. Though I suspect the Wizard will eventually let you down.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2016, 09:14:38 AM
They're not mutually exclusive.
I'm also embarrassed to be an American today.
I disagree. I am not.
Whether or not you like the results of the election, the fact is we all had the opportunity to vote. That isn't something to be embarrassed about. People felt differently than you. That is nothing to be embarrassed about. Every nation has had its share of bad leaders, the US isn't even near the leader board. That is nothing to be embarrassed about. We live in a country that affords more opportunity to its people than any other on the planet, we live in a country that donates more time and money outside its own borders than any other on the planet. That is not something to be embarrassed about.
It is ok to not like the results. It happens. But all the "end is coming" "sky is falling" rhetoric seems a bit extreme to me. Our government is set up so that one person can only do so much. Yes, you may say that he has congress as well, but as was well documented, the members of his own party were not exactly lock step with his agenda.
Want to move to Europe? Yeah, their leaders are glowing pillars of humanity. Their histories are free of any of the scars which ours bears. Their political systems are completely calm and settled at this time and they aren't dealing with any of the strife that faced the US in this election. Good luck with the move. I hope you can watch MU Bball on the foxsportsgo app.
I, today, am proud that I live in a country that has peacefully transferred power between parties for the entirety of its history. I am proud to live in a country where people who disagree can say whatever they want. I am proud that people that disagree can protest in the streets. I am proud that if things go sideways in the next 2 years, the people have the power to take Congress away from the party in power.
I chose to believe that the crazier ideas he threw around will not have support to get done. My hope is that it was campaign chest thumping.
I am proud to be an American. I am proud of the system we have. It isn't always perfect, in fact it never is. It is made up of people that are always flawed. I am proud of those that handled their victories with dignity. I am proud of those who handled their defeats with grace. I am proud that I live in a country that is and has long been a leader in human rights, and helping those with less. This country isn't perfect, but I do believe that it is closer to that goal than any other on the planet. And likely closer to that than any in the history of this planet. To cast shame and doubt and racism on millions and millions with a broad brush is irresponsible, negligent and ignorant.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 09, 2016, 02:09:15 PM
This
Because there are less people. Look if your views are the minority you shouldn't get to control the highest office, that's just not how a realistic democracy works. If you want to keep the electoral college that's perfectly fine but then we have to stop pretending we're the gold standard of democracy and equality because that's simply not true.
In your opinion, what then, is the gold standard?
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 09, 2016, 05:08:11 PM
I disagree. I am not.
Whether or not you like the results of the election, the fact is we all had the opportunity to vote. That isn't something to be embarrassed about. People felt differently than you. That is nothing to be embarrassed about. Every nation has had its share of bad leaders, the US isn't even near the leader board. That is nothing to be embarrassed about. We live in a country that affords more opportunity to its people than any other on the planet, we live in a country that donates more time and money outside its own borders than any other on the planet. That is not something to be embarrassed about.
.......
.......
I, today, am proud that I live in a country that has peacefully transferred power between parties for the entirety of its history. I am proud to live in a country where people who disagree can say whatever they want. I am proud that people that disagree can protest in the streets. I am proud that if things go sideways in the next 2 years, the people have the power to take Congress away from the party in power.
I chose to believe that the crazier ideas he threw around will not have support to get done. My hope is that it was campaign chest thumping.
I am proud to be an American. I am proud of the system we have. It isn't always perfect, in fact it never is. It is made up of people that are always flawed. I am proud of those that handled their victories with dignity. I am proud of those who handled their defeats with grace. I am proud that I live in a country that is and has long been a leader in human rights, and helping those with less. This country isn't perfect, but I do believe that it is closer to that goal than any other on the planet. And likely closer to that than any in the history of this planet. To cast shame and doubt and racism on millions and millions with a broad brush is irresponsible, negligent and ignorant.
I agreed until the last sentence. To cast shame on every single person who voted for a SELF-ADMITTED sexual criminal is the only proper thing to do. To vote for such a criminal is irresponsible, negligent and ignorant regardless of your political beliefs.
Quote from: brandx on November 09, 2016, 05:23:53 PM
I agreed until the last sentence. To cast shame on every single person who voted for a SELF-ADMITTED sexual criminal is the only proper thing to do. To vote for such a criminal is irresponsible, negligent and ignorant regardless of your political beliefs.
But I think most people felt they faced two horrible choices. Many viewed the other candidate as a negligent, untrustworthy criminal. Many people saw 2 criminal choices. They knew how one operated in politics. The other they didn't. One was seen as more of the same political syndicate. The other horrible choice was at least new.
The parties completely failed their people. Neither presented an option that was even palatable.
A pretty good recap:
http://www.barstoolsports.com/barstoolu/the-cocky-and-dismissive-media-and-blog-world-has-nobody-to-blame-but-themselves-for-their-new-president-donald-trump
Quote from: Benny B on November 09, 2016, 03:02:16 PM
Then amend the god damn constitution if you have to. It's about time we updated our laws. Fix the bear arms thing and throw something in about abortion if you want. Just fu@king fix it.
But I disagree that voting is speech. For one, it's done in private. Two, nobody said you have to vote for a candidate on the ballot, vote for Mickey Mouse or Mia Khalifa if you want. Or write in Monty Brewster.
If voting is speech, then so are income taxes, and last I checked, those were pretty compulsory, too.
Besides, tell me this.... what the hell is wrong with counting every voter instead of every vote?
That's what I said. Compulsory voting would require a constitutional amendment. Put one forward, advocate for it, perhaps it will pass. The new 1st amendment would need to specifically carve out voting, define it, and grant power to the federal government to compel citizens to vote or appear at the polls and officially abstain in order for this to change.
Sorry that we disagree, but your disagreement means that you disagree with the overwhelming weight of legal authority that currently defines the law of this country.
While it is possible to make the decision to not vote based on apathy, or laziness, or forgetfulness, that one could be abstaining to express dissatisfaction with the candidates, the democratic process itself, or literally any political reason whatsoever is sufficient to define abstention from voting as political speech, which is afforded the absolute maximum amount of 1st amendment protection available.
Quote from: jficke13 on November 09, 2016, 06:02:08 PM
While it is possible to make the decision to not vote based on apathy, or laziness, or forgetfulness, that one could be abstaining to express dissatisfaction with the candidates, the democratic process itself, or literally any political reason whatsoever is sufficient to define abstention from voting as political speech, which is afforded the absolute maximum amount of 1st amendment protection available.
Can counselor cite precedent?
Quote from: brandx on November 09, 2016, 05:23:53 PM
I agreed until the last sentence. To cast shame on every single person who voted for a SELF-ADMITTED sexual criminal is the only proper thing to do. To vote for such a criminal is irresponsible, negligent and ignorant regardless of your political beliefs.
Actually, they voted for his wife. You know, 22nd Amendment etc.
Unsurprisingly, I'm still on board with Bernie: (minus some of his crazy financial stances)
"Donald Trump tapped into the anger of a declining middle class that is sick and tired of establishment economics, establishment politics and the establishment media. People are tired of working longer hours for lower wages, of seeing decent paying jobs go to China and other low-wage countries, of billionaires not paying any federal income taxes and of not being able to afford a college education for their kids - all while the very rich become much richer.
To the degree that Mr. Trump is serious about pursuing policies that improve the lives of working families in this country, I and other progressives are prepared to work with him. To the degree that he pursues racist, sexist, xenophobic and anti-environment policies, we will vigorously oppose him."
https://www.facebook.com/senatorsanders/posts/10155320833612908
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 09, 2016, 05:08:11 PM
I disagree. I am not.
Whether or not you like the results of the election, the fact is we all had the opportunity to vote. That isn't something to be embarrassed about. People felt differently than you. That is nothing to be embarrassed about. Every nation has had its share of bad leaders, the US isn't even near the leader board. That is nothing to be embarrassed about. We live in a country that affords more opportunity to its people than any other on the planet, we live in a country that donates more time and money outside its own borders than any other on the planet. That is not something to be embarrassed about.
It is ok to not like the results. It happens. But all the "end is coming" "sky is falling" rhetoric seems a bit extreme to me. Our government is set up so that one person can only do so much. Yes, you may say that he has congress as well, but as was well documented, the members of his own party were not exactly lock step with his agenda.
Want to move to Europe? Yeah, their leaders are glowing pillars of humanity. Their histories are free of any of the scars which ours bears. Their political systems are completely calm and settled at this time and they aren't dealing with any of the strife that faced the US in this election. Good luck with the move. I hope you can watch MU Bball on the foxsportsgo app.
I, today, am proud that I live in a country that has peacefully transferred power between parties for the entirety of its history. I am proud to live in a country where people who disagree can say whatever they want. I am proud that people that disagree can protest in the streets. I am proud that if things go sideways in the next 2 years, the people have the power to take Congress away from the party in power.
I chose to believe that the crazier ideas he threw around will not have support to get done. My hope is that it was campaign chest thumping.
I am proud to be an American. I am proud of the system we have. It isn't always perfect, in fact it never is. It is made up of people that are always flawed. I am proud of those that handled their victories with dignity. I am proud of those who handled their defeats with grace. I am proud that I live in a country that is and has long been a leader in human rights, and helping those with less. This country isn't perfect, but I do believe that it is closer to that goal than any other on the planet. And likely closer to that than any in the history of this planet. To cast shame and doubt and racism on millions and millions with a broad brush is irresponsible, negligent and ignorant.
I cannot respect nor pretend to understand how anyone could possibly vote for that man.
Disagreeing on policy, social issues, etc. is one thing. Voting for Trump is something else entirely to me.
I love this country. However, the fact that 60 million people cast a ballot for a racist, misogynistic, ego-maniacal, uninformed piece of sh*t is an absolute embarrassment to me.
That does not make me negligent or ignorant. If you think so, you are the one that is ignorant.
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 09, 2016, 05:08:11 PM
I am proud to be an American.
I'm neither proud nor embarrassed to be an American. It's pretty dumb to take pride (or shame) in the accident of one's birth, IMO.
I am, however, frequently proud and embarrassed by the words and actions of my fellow Americans.
Also, "Proud to be an American" is the worst song ever.
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 09, 2016, 05:53:37 PM
But I think most people felt they faced two horrible choices. Many viewed the other candidate as a negligent, untrustworthy criminal. Many people saw 2 criminal choices. They knew how one operated in politics. The other they didn't. One was seen as more of the same political syndicate. The other horrible choice was at least new.
The parties completely failed their people. Neither presented an option that was even palatable.
This time I agree with the last sentence.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 08, 2016, 10:33:21 PM
I did not vote for Hillary. I did not vote for Donald. I do not want either as the President of the US.
Markets TANKING at the thought of Trump presidency. Worse than 9/11.
More importantly...
Mark Lazerus @MarkLazerus 1h1 hour ago
I can't imagine what this is like, the message this sends, to people of color, to women, to immigrants, to LGBTQ people, to so many.
This is honestly disappointing. I get disenfranchised people. I do. But it was more than that. So much more.
A candidate ran, in a small percentage, on racism. And the US supported it.
I could easily point to baby boomers as wanting "their" America back. But it's not like Millenials were running from Trump.
Crazy night.
Edit: Our VP-elect doesn't believe in evolution.
you fell for that? you're smarter than that jesmu-shoulda grabbed with both hands
It's a shame that the politics board was deleted because I started dozens of threads explaining exactly why this would happen. I kind of think the board was ended because of my relentless explaining of the biggest political event of your lifetime was coming and the moderators were tired of listening to it.
And I can see from this thread that most still don't understand what exactly happened. Hint, if you use the words sexism or racism in explaining what happened your just trying to make yourself feel better, not understand what happened.
But moving on let me focus on this
On January 20 ....
President - republican
Senate - republican
House - republican
Majority of governors - republican
Majority of state legislatures - republican
This is the first time in 200 years that the democrat party does not have a majority in anything. Who is their leader? Who is their highest profile current politician (Obama is retiring so he no longer counts)? Is the answer no one? Is this their lowest point in two centuries? I say yes.
How does this change? It has to kick out everyone in leadership, and I mean everyone. If it does not it will never have a majority in our lifetime Who should lead it? Sanders is too old.
How about the one person on the left that understands the "deplorables" and can form a coalition with minorities to bring the party back to a place of relevancy. And I'm serious about this, their 2020 Presidential candidate ... Michael Moore.
Moore said this in October in Ohio and man does he get it.
---------------
https://soundcloud.com/user-87363945/micheal-moore-maga
If you don't want to listen to it, here is the transcript.
I know a lot of people in Michigan that are planning to vote for Trump and they don't necessarily agree with him. They're not racist or redneck, they're actually pretty decent people and so after talking to a number of them I wanted to write this.
Donald Trump came to the Detroit Economic Club and stood there in front of Ford Motor executives and said "if you close these factories as you're planning to do in Detroit and build them in Mexico, I'm going to put a 35% tariff on those cars when you send them back and nobody's going to buy them." It was an amazing thing to see. No politician, Republican or Democrat, had ever said anything like that to these executives, and it was music to the ears of people in Michigan and Ohio and Pennsylvania and Wisconsin - the "Brexit" states.
You live here in Ohio, you know what I'm talking about. Whether Trump means it or not, is kind of irrelevant because he's saying the things to people who are hurting, and that's why every beaten-down, nameless, forgotten working stiff who used to be part of what was called the middle class loves Trump. He is the human Molotov Cocktail that they've been waiting for; the human hand grande that they can legally throw into the system that stole their lives from them. And on November 8, although they lost their jobs, although they've been foreclose on by the bank, next came the divorce and now the wife and kids are gone, the car's been repoed, they haven't had a real vacation in years, they're stuck with the sh*tty Obamacare bronze plan where you can't even get a f*cking percocet, they've essentially lost everything they had except one thing - the one thing that doesn't cost them a cent and is guaranteed to them by the American constitution: the right to vote.
They might be penniless, they might be homeless, they might be f*cked over and f*cked up it doesn't matter, because it's equalized on that day - a millionaire has the same number of votes as the person without a job: one. And there's more of the former middle class than there are in the millionaire class. So on November 8 the dispossessed will walk into the voting booth, be handed a ballot, close the curtain, and take that lever or felt pen or touchscreen and put a big f*cking X in the box by the name of the man who has threatened to upend and overturn the very system that has ruined their lives: Donald J Trump.
They see that the elite who ruined their lives hate Trump. Corporate America hates Trump. Wall Street hates Trump. The career politicians hate Trump. The media hates Trump, after they loved him and created him, and now hate. Thank you media: the enemy of my enemy is who I'm voting for on November 8.
Yes, on November 8, you Joe Blow, Steve Blow, Bob Blow, Billy Blow, all the Blows get to go and blow up the whole g*ddamn system because it's your right. Trump's election is going to be the biggest f*ck you ever recorded in human history and it will feel good.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 09, 2016, 06:57:20 PM
I'm neither proud nor embarrassed to be an American. It's pretty dumb to take pride (or shame) in the accident of one's birth, IMO.
I am, however, frequently proud and embarrassed by the words and actions of my fellow Americans.
Also, "Proud to be an American" is the worst song ever.
This is a perfect post start to finish.
(And that Lee Greenwood is a world-class piece of garbage.)
Quote from: rocket surgeon on November 09, 2016, 07:22:08 PM
you fell for that? you're smarter than that jesmu-shoulda grabbed with both hands
Which part?
Quote from: Pakuni on November 09, 2016, 06:57:20 PM
Also, "Proud to be an American" is the worst song ever.
I believe the song to which you are referring is actually "God Bless the U.S.A"
And I am not surprised you don't like it, you godless communist.
Quote from: keefe on November 09, 2016, 10:43:18 AM
You have no basis for this statement other than hubris and angst.
There was a similar emotional outcry in 1980 when Dutch was elected. What America got over the next 8 years was some of the more inspiring and effective leadership we have ever enjoyed as a nation.
In November 1980 the prime rate was over 20%, unemployment was double digits, our military capability had been gutted, Soviet expansionism was a reality, and a third rate power had seized sovereign American soil and was holding our embassy staff hostage.
Before the end of that decade both the prime lending rate and unemployment were below 4%, our nation's military had been rebuilt, and the Berlin Wall came down as the Soviet Union crumbled.
Our hostages were released by Iran as Dutch Reagan was being sworn in. Apologists would have you believe it was one final dig at Carter by the mullahs. Far more likely, they feared the new CinC as a man of commitment and righteousness.
People saw Reagan's election as a sign of the Apocalypse; those same folks, and fellow travelers, are saying that once more. As Dutch Reagan once said, "Now there you go again."
bravo, bully and right on keefe. the reagan era is a part of our history that cannot be repeated soon enough. how soon people forget or if they were still taught any history in school , sadly, it was by the revisionistas. God bless you for your service. right colin(or is it colon? ;D)
Quote from: warriorchick on November 09, 2016, 07:46:29 PM
I believe the song to which you are referring is actually "God Bless the U.S.A"
And I am not surprised you don't like it, you godless communist.
I'm flattered that your desire to correct me outweighed your embarrassment over knowing the song's correct title. ;D
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 09, 2016, 07:45:11 PM
Which part?
the futures market down last night-gasp! people were real quick to say, see-i told ya....well, it's like catching falling knives, eyn'a? that's what i thought you were alluding to anyway. if i misread your comment, my bad
Jesse deserves credit for seeing the trend ahead of most if us.
But before he pulls a muscle patting himself on the back too much, let's also remember he also predicted Trump had no chance of winning the nomination, much less the presidency.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 09, 2016, 07:49:07 PM
I'm flattered that your desire to correct me outweighed your embarrassment over knowing the song's correct title. ;D
I have never been embarrassed by my vast knowledge of useless, yet mildly interesting facts; that only happens to my hapless opponents in Trivial Pursuit.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 09, 2016, 07:51:10 PM
Jesse deserves credit for seeing the trend ahead of most if us.
But before he pulls a muscle patting himself on the back too much, let's also remember he also predicted Trump had no chance of winning the nomination, much less the presidency.
Huh? I was arguing he would do exactly this win since August 2015.
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 09, 2016, 05:11:33 PM
In your opinion, what then, is the gold standard?
Norway or Sweden
Clinton said the crushing loss was "painful and it will be for a long time" and acknowledged that the nation was "more divided than we thought."
Still, she was gracious in defeat, declaring: "Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead."
Interesting. This is exactly opposite how Trump said he would have reacted had Hillary won. He gave every indication that he would have been defiant and would have claimed the election had been "rigged."
Meanwhile ...
Trump spent years questioning Obama's birthplace and challenged the legitimacy of his presidency. Nevertheless, Obama invited Trump to the White House on Thursday, saying: "We are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country."
Sounds exactly like what the Republicans said of Obama back in November 2008.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2016, 06:56:09 PM
I cannot respect nor pretend to understand how anyone could possibly vote for that man.
Disagreeing on policy, social issues, etc. is one thing. Voting for Trump is something else entirely to me.
I love this country. However, the fact that 60 million people cast a ballot for a racist, misogynistic, ego-maniacal, uninformed piece of sh*t is an absolute embarrassment to me.
That does not make me negligent or ignorant. If you think so, you are the one that is ignorant.
If you can't think of a s single reason why people would vote for him, or against her, you must be a complete party line hack that believes whatever the party tells you.
I would like everyone to just relax. Give Trump time in the WH. See what the House, Senate and WH accomplish in a year or so before everyone freaks out and becomes crazy and obstructionist and whatever else.
However... Those on the right need to understand this:
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14980602_1303780649714986_8635272410934241025_n.jpg?oh=af666f9b09939b365a43220bda9e49a9&oe=589172C5)
2008 and 2012 were not met with open arms/hearts and a will to work together by the right. That's whatever. But then to get all mad when the left responds the same way in 2016? Dumb
Quote from: Pakuni on November 09, 2016, 06:57:20 PM
I'm neither proud nor embarrassed to be an American. It's pretty dumb to take pride (or shame) in the accident of one's birth, IMO.
I am, however, frequently proud and embarrassed by the words and actions of my fellow Americans.
Also, "Proud to be an American" is the worst song ever.
It isn't like I am proud of the geography. It is that I am proud to be a part of the history and culture here. Though I have contributed nothing to this country, I take pride in knowing what this country has accomplished. From the political system, to the charitable nature of its people to the sacrifices made by the many that have made this entire world a better place through their struggles. I am proud of the contributions my grandparents made to the world through their service to this country. I am proud that this country gave my Grandpa the ability to go from an orphan to just about the pinnacle of his chosen profession. I am proud that this country has given my parents, grandparents, brothers and family to be able to be whatever they want. The ability to raise their families, to even have their families.
It isn't about being fortunate enough to be born here. That is why so many strive to be here. It is why my grandparents and great grandparents came here from different parts of Europe. I hope that if I had not been born here (obviously not possible, but anyways...) I would have been courageous enough to fight to come here. I am proud to be a part of this country, and a part of the people that make up this nation. I don't always agree with the larger population, but I am grateful for my freedom to disagree. Places where everyone agrees are not natural. I hope and pray I never live in such a place. I am proud of what these people have accomplished over their history. It hasn't always been pretty, but in the end, this country has mostly done what is right by the rest of the world.
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 09, 2016, 08:16:09 PM
If you can't think of a s single reason why people would vote for him, or against her, you must be a complete party line hack that believes whatever the party tells you.
He didn't say he couldn't think of a reason why people would vote for Trump, just that he doesn't respect or understand those reasons.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 09, 2016, 08:00:57 PM
Norway or Sweden
Ah. Two completely homogeneous societies, one with a population about that of new york city, the other far less. Both with fantastic oil wealth. I see.
I am honestly not too familiar how are those systems better?
Quote from: Babybluejeans on November 09, 2016, 08:32:29 PM
He didn't say he couldn't think of a reason why people would vote for Trump, just that he doesn't respect or understand those reasons.
Fine. If you don't understand... same exact thing.
I didn't vote for him, but I can understand plenty of reasons why someone would vote against her.
Quote from: Pakuni on November 09, 2016, 02:02:39 PM
You say that as if it's a bad thing.
More seriously, though, presidents already ignore smaller states like North Dakota. Trump or Hillary didn't exactly spend a lot of time campaigning in Fargo and Bismarck.
Also, states like North Dakota already have disproportionate representation in the legislature. They'd do just fine without the disproportionate representation in the electoral college.
It is a bad thing, a horrible thing. Did you not notice the amount of visits by both candidates to New Hampshire, tiny NH the last three weeks? Or Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada? That doesn't happen without the electoral college.
The great myth of the popular vote is everyone shows up. First off, we are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. Second, voters in heavy red or heavy blue states from the opposite side often don't show up, so the true popular vote total is misleading. Do Republicans vote in California at a level they should? Democrats in Texas? Not at all, they stay home because their votes is meaningless. In doing so, the popluar vote total is skewed.
I don't want the candidates visiting my state.
Quote from: MU82 on November 09, 2016, 08:10:39 PM
Clinton said the crushing loss was "painful and it will be for a long time" and acknowledged that the nation was "more divided than we thought."
Still, she was gracious in defeat, declaring: "Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead."
Interesting. This is exactly opposite how Trump said he would have reacted had Hillary won. He gave every indication that he would have been defiant and would have claimed the election had been "rigged."
Meanwhile ...
Trump spent years questioning Obama's birthplace and challenged the legitimacy of his presidency. Nevertheless, Obama invited Trump to the White House on Thursday, saying: "We are now all rooting for his success in uniting and leading the country."
Sounds exactly like what the Republicans said of Obama back in November 2008.
What is most ironic or hypocritical is watching the citizenry today. All of this dust up whether Trump would accept the results, yet we have people protesting (liberals) in the streets not accepting the results. Chanting he isn't their president. In 2008, those people were labeled racists for saying the same thing.
Hillary's surrogates also questioned Obama's birthplace. Started the entire thing.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 09, 2016, 08:27:07 PM
I would like everyone to just relax. Give Trump time in the WH. See what the House, Senate and WH accomplish in a year or so before everyone freaks out and becomes crazy and obstructionist and whatever else.
However... Those on the right need to understand this:
(https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14980602_1303780649714986_8635272410934241025_n.jpg?oh=af666f9b09939b365a43220bda9e49a9&oe=589172C5)
2008 and 2012 were not met with open arms/hearts and a will to work together by the right. That's whatever. But then to get all mad when the left responds the same way in 2016? Dumb
Democrats were the party of no before the GOP was. Let's not forget that.
Quote from: The Sultan of Sunshine on November 09, 2016, 09:40:48 PM
I don't want the candidates visiting my state.
I do, and I'm glad they did. I would hate to live in a California or New York, where they don't bother.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 09, 2016, 08:27:07 PM
I would like everyone to just relax. Give Trump time in the WH. See what the House, Senate and WH accomplish in a year or so before everyone freaks out and becomes crazy and obstructionist and whatever else.
However... Those on the right need to understand this:
2008 and 2012 were not met with open arms/hearts and a will to work together by the right. That's whatever. But then to get all mad when the left responds the same way in 2016? Dumb
Hypocrites exposing the hypocrisy of hypocrites.
America got what it deserved last night. Own it.
Wikileaks, one of the best things to happen in years. Watching people that supposedly are for the truth, or even journalist upset about the truth coming out is the ultimate in craziness.
What the DNC did to Bernie Sanders was criminal. The collusion with the media. No one can ever claim liberals and the media aren't tied together for the rest of time. The collusion on debate questions, what stories to print, what stories to spike. Wilileaks brought that home for all to see. The media got destroyed last night, and that is a good thing. It needs to rebuild itself into an entity that can be trusted. Wikileaks proved what so many already knew.
Complaints about the Russians? Is this proven? No it is not. If Wikileaks came out about Trump would complainers today have hesitated one second to use them? Would the media?
This photo from a Columbia University school of journalism said it all.
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/12/15/t1larg.protester.jpg)
Quote from: Pakuni on November 09, 2016, 01:56:17 PM
The electoral college has its positives and negatives, but no, it wasn't built to protect the voice of the minority or even small states. It was built to protect the presidency from an unqualified populist who would sway less educated voters (oops). It was, in fact, created to protect the elites from the masses.
Even backers of the college have to admit it's patently unfair. It makes a vote from a Wyoming resident, for example, far more valuable than one from a California resident.
There are downsides with a purely popular vote as well, of course.
This is wholly incorrect. Completely incorrect on why it was created. I was fortunate enough to take an electoral college class for an entire semester. One of the best courses I have ever taken.
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 09, 2016, 08:16:09 PM
If you can't think of a s single reason why people would vote for him, or against her, you must be a complete party line hack that believes whatever the party tells you.
I can think of plenty of reasons people would vote against her, if she happened to be facing someone who was remotely qualified to lead our country. The problem is she was facing Donald Trump instead.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2016, 09:53:02 PM
I can think of plenty of reasons people would vote against her, if she happened to be facing someone who was remotely qualified to lead our country. The problem is she was facing Donald Trump instead.
Remember this: Trump would have been calling Bernie to concede at 9:00pm last night.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe Trump won because people thought Hillary was even less qualified to lead the country?
I don't think we have a clue how Trump will govern. My hunch is he will be much more presidential and go right on some issues and surprisingly left on others. Keep the two parties fighting for his ear.
I was watching his buddy Tom Barrack on Bloomberg and he says Trump's style will be drastically different than as a campaigner when he was stirring the pot as an "outsider". The supreme court nominee and what role Pence will really play will be interesting to see play out.
The man is a wild card.
Quote from: Benny B on November 09, 2016, 09:57:37 PM
Remember this: Trump would have been calling Bernie to concede at 9:00pm last night.
Did you ever stop to think that maybe Trump won because people thought Hillary was even less qualified to lead the country?
No. Because that's absurd. I'm not a Hillary fan. I understand the dislike. I understand if people disagree with her policies or disagree with her philosophically or are uncomfortable with a number of other issues.
However, I cannot fathom how anyone of any intellligence with a modicum of common sense would make the choice that was made last night. Instead, uninformed people were driven by hate, anger, and misinformation to elect arguably the most unqualified individual to ever hold this office.
I am legitimately worried about the future of this country. If it was a Mitt Romney or John McCain, while I wouldn't agree with their platforms, at least I would feel that they had some idea of how to govern. I say this as a white male. I can only imagine how some other groups within our country feel today.
Quote from: Blackhat on November 09, 2016, 10:01:07 PM
I don't think we have a clue how Trump will govern. My hunch is he will be much more presidential and go right on some issues and surprisingly left on others. Keep the two parties fighting for his ear.
I was watching his buddy Tom Barrack on Bloomberg and he says Trump's style will be drastically different than as a campaigner when he was stirring the pot as an "outsider". The supreme court nominee and what role Pence will really play will be interesting to see play out.
The man is a wild card.
The problem is I don't think Trump has a clue on how he is going to govern.
In this day and age, the last thing I want in the White House is a wildcard with such incredibly thin skin that he had to have his Twitter account taken away from him like a child.
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 09, 2016, 09:42:16 PM
Democrats were the party of no before the GOP was. Let's not forget that.
No argument here. Just trying to point out why today's situation between how some lefties are feeling compared to how righties are feeling.
Quote from: Benny B on November 09, 2016, 09:45:52 PM
Hypocrites exposing the hypocrisy of hypocrites.
America got what it deserved last night. Own it.
I am.
Vox clearly has a slant. But some videos with good information nonetheless:
Trump's victory, its implications and the Republican party going forward:
https://www.youtube.com/v/1PUtvNUSpHw
Democracy and the rise of Trump:
https://www.youtube.com/v/RLCUphApmr8
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2016, 06:56:09 PM
I cannot respect nor pretend to understand how anyone could possibly vote for that man.
Disagreeing on policy, social issues, etc. is one thing. Voting for Trump is something else entirely to me.
I love this country. However, the fact that 60 million people cast a ballot for a racist, misogynistic, ego-maniacal, uninformed piece of sh*t is an absolute embarrassment to me.
That does not make me negligent or ignorant. If you think so, you are the one that is ignorant.
Did he say some crass things? Yes. Has Hillary? Yes. Has Joe Biden? Yes. Did Bill Clinton say and DO crass things? Yes. Ted Kennedy? Yes. He is no more racist or misogynist that Hillary, Bill, Joe Biden or anyone else. Look at the racist comments by members of the DNC in those wikileaks emails. Look at the anti-religious smears.
You realize that Trump got 1/3 of the Latino vote, right? He did better with women than all the pundits thought. African Americans, 2X what Romney got. White, uneducated voters who have historically voted for Democrats and Democrats have opened them with open arms for many years, swung to his side. Now all of a sudden those voters are toxic, bigoted racists? Why? Because they have been destroyed economically and want a piece of the pie?
You're out of touch. Those that are in touch just won a huge election.
Quote from: jesmu84 on November 09, 2016, 11:30:59 AM
Do you believe the people spoke in 2008? Was that also a referendum on what the American people want in a government? Were you onboard with any decisions that government made because the people spoke?
Of course the people spoke in 2008. And again in 2010. 2012. 2014. 2016. That's what elections are for.
What has been embarrassing is the reaction to the results of the American people. If you don't like the results, don't run an absolutely corrupt to the core woman, who has lied for 30 years, has a husband that is the scum of the earth, who isn't colluding with her party to squash other candidates, and who didn't knowingly defy Congressional orders to preserve emails and not to destroy and bleach them. Think how awful your candidate had to be to lose to Donald Trump? Your team blew it. She was rejected wholeheartedly by the American voters. So were most of your Senate candidates. A bad, bad day for Democrats. Game changing.
I don't understand the protests in Chicago & NYC. Both states were easily carried by Clinton. It makes no sense to me what could possibly be of protest in those two locales. The democratic process worked there, what's left to protest?
If you have a beef with the results, rather than protest, do something about it. Our process is democratic, the protesters had all the opportunity in the world to elect their official of choice and organize an effort to do so. Don't be ignorant of the Electoral College. Don't live in Chicago or NYC, or any large urban area. Move to rural Ohio, PA, MI if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
I voted independent this year, but these protests are a worthless exercise.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2016, 10:14:17 PM
The problem is I don't think Trump has a clue on how he is going to govern.
In this day and age, the last thing I want in the White House is a wildcard with such incredibly thin skin that he had to have his Twitter account taken away from him like a child.
Well if there is one thing I've learned over the course of this election process is not to underestimate Trump's political intuition anymore. I started two years ago thinking there is no way this man gets more than 35% of the vote.
And really the intelligence in voting for trump could be argued two ways. Many people understand that the lasting person of power is the supreme court nominee and if you want a chance at a strict constructionist on the supreme court you had no other option, even if you hated Trump. I still couldn't vote for him but I know others who did, not really liking him but wanting a shot at a strict constructionist.
But to be sure, many poor whites, which used to be the democrats base, do love the man.
Quote from: MUDish on November 09, 2016, 10:35:12 PM
I don't understand the protests in Chicago & NYC. Both states were easily carried by Clinton. It makes no sense to me what could possibly be of protest in those two locales. The democratic process worked there, what's left to protest?
If you have a beef with the results, rather than protest, do something about it. Our process is democratic, the protesters had all the opportunity in the world to elect their official of choice and organize an effort to do so. Don't be ignorant of the Electoral College. Don't live in Chicago or NYC, or any large urban area. Move to rural Ohio, PA, MI if you want to put your money where your mouth is.
I voted independent this year, but these protests are a worthless exercise.
That's why I believe in the decentralization of power in many areas of government. If you have more power of governance at the local level and don't like your local politics you can move to the next town.
If you don't like the state politics you can move to the next state. But if you have power largely centralized and don't agree with the national government you have far fewer plausible and encouraging options. Resulting in common people with less political freedom and power. Thus revolutions become more likely.
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 09, 2016, 10:27:25 PM
Did he say some crass things? Yes. Has Hillary? Yes. Has Joe Biden? Yes. Did Bill Clinton say and DO crass things? Yes. Ted Kennedy? Yes. He is no more racist or misogynist that Hillary, Bill, Joe Biden or anyone else. Look at the racist comments by members of the DNC in those wikileaks emails. Look at the anti-religious smears.
You realize that Trump got 1/3 of the Latino vote, right? He did better with women than all the pundits thought. African Americans, 2X what Romney got. White, uneducated voters who have historically voted for Democrats and Democrats have opened them with open arms for many years, swung to his side. Now all of a sudden those voters are toxic, bigoted racists? Why? Because they have been destroyed economically and want a piece of the pie?
You're out of touch. Those that are in touch just won a huge election.
I'm not out of touch in the least. Nor did I label all those who voted for him as bigoted racists. However a fair number certainly are.
I do consider anyone who did cast a ballot for him to be wholly uninformed, an idiot, or both. The question is how much damage he will be able to do to our country in the 4 years before he is voted out
Donald is no more misogynistic than Hillary and I'm the one that's out of touch? Thanks for the laugh.
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 09, 2016, 09:41:41 PM
What is most ironic or hypocritical is watching the citizenry today. All of this dust up whether Trump would accept the results, yet we have people protesting (liberals) in the streets not accepting the results. Chanting he isn't their president. In 2008, those people were labeled racists for saying the same thing.
I'm not questioning the citizenry. I'm questioning the man himself.
Dust up? Trump said so himself! It wasn't a made-up story. Trump said it!
It is remarkably arrogant of you to not understand how anyone could possibly have a different point of view.
It really makes you seem like a smug, elitist, know it all who is throwing a tantrum when you didn't get your way.
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 09, 2016, 11:27:31 PM
It is typically arrogant of you to not understand how anyone could possibly have a different point of view, or different morality.
My viewpoints have absolutely nothing to do with arrogance.
Don't talk to me about morality when Donald Trump and sexual assault is part of the conversation.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2016, 11:40:50 PM
My viewpoints have absolutely nothing to do with arrogance.
Don't talk to me about morality when Donald Trump and sexual assault is part of the conversation.
Thanks. Proved my point exactly.
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 09, 2016, 10:31:00 PM
Of course the people spoke in 2008. And again in 2010. 2012. 2014. 2016. That's what elections are for.
What has been embarrassing is the reaction to the results of the American people. If you don't like the results, don't run an absolutely corrupt to the core woman, who has lied for 30 years, has a husband that is the scum of the earth, who isn't colluding with her party to squash other candidates, and who didn't knowingly defy Congressional orders to preserve emails and not to destroy and bleach them. Think how awful your candidate had to be to lose to Donald Trump? Your team blew it. She was rejected wholeheartedly by the American voters. So were most of your Senate candidates. A bad, bad day for Democrats. Game changing.
I think you kind of missed the point of my post.
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 09, 2016, 11:43:09 PM
Thanks. Proved my point exactly.
You've missed the point entirely.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2016, 11:59:14 PM
You've missed the point entirely.
I got your point, it was just terrible.
If you truly can't understand, you probably have no diversity of thought among your social group. Instead of just insulting giant groups of people, maybe try to understand them.
Nevermind. You're just too sensitive to have any real discussion with.
Well this was civil up until the last two pages. Thanks for ruining a decent conversation boys.
And we all are reminded why there is no more politics board.
"Trump spent years questioning Obama's birthplace"
you do realize this was brought up and pursued by hillary during the 2008 campaign, right? just checking
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/
"I do consider anyone who did cast a ballot for him to be wholly uninformed, an idiot, or both. The question is how much damage he will be able to do to our country in the 4 years before he is voted out"
and you don't see the elitism/i know better attitude here? many felt this same way about 2008 and 2012. the years of the new normal. how much damage has been done to our country over the last 8 years? this is why you have trump. he kicked PC in the teeth and was saying so many things, we the people were expecting some of the pols to say. remember debate #1 or 2 between obama and romney? romney got after obamam on some sensitive subjects and his ratings soared. the next 1 or 2, romney settled down and guess what? he lost
Hey Rocket - what specific policy got trump elected in your opinion? PC is not a policy so I am confused as to how this contributed??
Also what are the specific subjects Romney 'got' Obama on?
Quote from: #UnleashWally on November 10, 2016, 12:38:03 AM
Well this was civil up until the last two pages. Thanks for ruining a decent conversation boys.
i've seen the hangin' at the al get much worse than this. when an elitist makes an elite statement and doesn't see it, well therein lies the rub. to essentially state that anyone who cast a ballot different from yours, or doesn't see things your way, is a narcissist at least. when you open a statement such as yours, you just insulted about 50% of the populace
i think many here need to brush up on their definition of the word "racism" it's a label that is thrown around a little to loosely today and dilutes what racism really is. it is a powerful word indeed and it's used more as a conversation stopper than anything
Quote from: rocket surgeon on November 10, 2016, 04:41:46 AM
i've seen the hangin' at the al get much worse than this. when an elitist makes an elite statement and doesn't see it, well therein lies the rub. to essentially state that anyone who cast a ballot different from yours, or doesn't see things your way, is a narcissist at least. when you open a statement such as yours, you just insulted about 50% of the populace
i think many here need to brush up on their definition of the word "racism" it's a label that is thrown around a little to loosely today and dilutes what racism really is. it is a powerful word indeed and it's used more as a conversation stopper than anything
I don't believe 50% of the US is racist - it's too simple to dismiss and there is much more there.
On the flip side you can't defend The comments on the judge with Mexican heritage nor some comments to woman and think that some people don't feel marginalized.
I am from an elite segment of the US - we all are - we are the privlaged 30% of adults with a college degree and likely income in that range or higher.
Quote from: Frenns Liquor Depot on November 10, 2016, 04:40:14 AM
Hey Rocket - what specific policy got trump elected in your opinion? PC is not a policy so I am confused as to how this contributed??
Also what are the specific subjects Romney 'got' Obama on?
PC is "how" people are supposed to act or think. it's says people cannot get upset or disagree about something that they think is crazy for fear of being labeled something
what policy got trump elected? there were a number of policies that he discussed that got people jazzed up-getting rid of "affordable care act", the supreme court judges he would nominate, preventing american business from moving out of the country and incentives to bring back some of those that have left, homeland security, respecting our law enforcement, getting rid of all the economy stopping regulations and mandates that have the boot on the neck of our working class. shrink the size of government-did you know there are more gubmint employees than private sector? by A LOT...78% more? and you know they do not produce anything
romney finally called out obama on the libya situation, for not calling it a terrorist attack, for not taking a more aggressive stance, etc then the moderator, candy crowley(CNN)wrongly stepped in to help defend her candidate. the people wanted to know more about libya at that time as it proved to be a pivotal point. obama had just got done saying isis(isil) is on the run, they're "jv", etc and then kaboom. he had to run out the clock until the election by lying about what really happened there. if people really knew-he would have lost 2012
Quote from: rocket surgeon on November 10, 2016, 05:10:03 AM
PC is "how" people are supposed to act or think. it's says people cannot get upset or disagree about something that they think is crazy for fear of being labeled something
what policy got trump elected? there were a number of policies that he discussed that got people jazzed up-getting rid of "affordable care act", the supreme court judges he would nominate, preventing american business from moving out of the country and incentives to bring back some of those that have left, homeland security, respecting our law enforcement, getting rid of all the economy stopping regulations and mandates that have the boot on the neck of our working class. shrink the size of government-did you know there are more gubmint employees than private sector? by A LOT...78% more? and you know they do not produce anything
romney finally called out obama on the libya situation, for not calling it a terrorist attack, for not taking a more aggressive stance, etc then the moderator, candy crowley(CNN)wrongly stepped in to help defend her candidate. the people wanted to know more about libya at that time as it proved to be a pivotal point. obama had just got done saying isis(isil) is on the run, they're "jv", etc and then kaboom. he had to run out the clock until the election by lying about what really happened there. if people really knew-he would have lost 2012
Thanks I see the causes and responses to some of those differently but understand at least why people were so disenfranchised.
I would just add that your definition of PC is how you feel not that someone in politics told you how to think or legislated a policy for that. I am an optimist that believes being mindful and finding common ground is all our goals. It's rare I've been in the minority but when I have I appreciated others inclusive attitudes.
It's been 34 or so hours and man am I sick of the Democrat excuses. Blaming the electoral college? Screw that. Every candidate knew the system going in. Hillary knew she needed Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, she just assumed they'd come along.
And if Hillary LOST the election because of the system, didn't she WIN the nomination over Bernie because of a similar system of superdelegates? Can't cry foul now.
The Dems lost this because they ostracized the majority. Because Hillary thought she was appealing to the the electorate of 2036. We're not there yet. This is on her and the Democratic leadership.
Now that said, I hope Chuck Schumer is ready. It's time to obstruct through the filibuster. Pick your battles, but protect LGBT rights and gay marriage. Protect Muslim and Hispanic rights. Make sure that the worst aspects of Trump's candidacy don't become the law of the land. And make damn sure no SCOTUS justice is approved if they will strike down individual rights or Roe v Wade.
I've heard the calls for unity, but screw that. Where were those calls in 2008 and 2012? Where was the unity when Obama tried to replace Scalia? Republicans have obstructed for 8 years. Time to filibuster for 2, 4, 8, 20, or whatever it takes.
Quote from: brewcity77 on November 10, 2016, 06:43:38 AM
Now that said, I hope Chuck Schumer is ready. It's time to obstruct through the filibuster. Pick your battles, but protect LGBT rights and gay marriage. Protect Muslim and Hispanic rights. Make sure that the worst aspects of Trump's candidacy don't become the law of the land. And make damn sure no SCOTUS justice is approved if they will strike down individual rights or Roe v Wade.
If what Rocket said is true than Trump can be the president for all of us by being all economics all the time. I agree that going after the issues you say above are the quickest way to get nothing done fast. We are a very divided country thanks to the wedge of social issues.
Quote from: #UnleashWally on November 10, 2016, 12:38:03 AM
Well this was civil up until the last two pages. Thanks for ruining a decent conversation boys.
For my part in that, I apologize. I didn't mean to go down the rabbit hole. I'm done and out, please continue.
I think one of the most interesting stories of the election is the fundamental shift in the blue collar/union vote in PA, OH, MI and WI. For decades these votes have been reliably blue. Living in Ohio, I first saw this in the eastern-most part of the state. This three county corridor from Ashtabula up by Lake Erie and down through Youngstown definitely leans heavily democrat. Tuesday two went for Trump and the third was soft for Clinton. It's the same thing that played out in the rest of the much-discussed "Blue Wall" of PA, MI and WI.
It will be very interesting to see what comes of this. Trump managed to appeal to a voting block that has been very reliable over the years. His, "what have they done for you" message resonated with them. If he can deliver anything to them, he may keep them. If not, they may return to the fold. Much of what is ailing the rust belt is a difficult fix, so we'll see how it goes.
Trump's win may be a bit of a double whammy for the unions. In addition to losing sway over their members (as discussed above), he may well rein in the extraordinarily pro-Union NLRB. I deal with a lot of federal agencies in my day to day life. Many have shown noticeable shifts over the last eight years, and that is to be expected. But the NLRB is really off the tracks right now. I certainly hope that becomes one of the new administration's agenda items and they restore some sanity there.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on November 10, 2016, 07:18:07 AM
I think one of the most interesting stories of the election is the fundamental shift in the blue collar/union vote in PA, OH, MI and WI. For decades these votes have been reliably blue. Living in Ohio, I first saw this in the eastern-most part of the state. This three county corridor from Ashtabula up by Lake Erie and down through Youngstown definitely leans heavily democrat. Tuesday two went for Trump and the third was soft for Clinton. It's the same thing that played out in the rest of the much-discussed "Blue Wall" of PA, MI and WI.
It will be very interesting to see what comes of this. Trump managed to appeal to a voting block that has been very reliable over the years. His, "what have they done for you" message resonated with them. If he can deliver anything to them, he may keep them. If not, they may return to the fold. Much of what is ailing the rust belt is a difficult fix, so we'll see how it goes.
Trump's win may be a bit of a double whammy for the unions. In addition to losing sway over their members (as discussed above), he may well rein in the extraordinarily pro-Union NLRB. I deal with a lot of federal agencies in my day to day life. Many have shown noticeable shifts over the last eight years, and that is to be expected. But the NLRB is really off the tracks right now. I certainly hope that becomes one of the new administration's agenda items and they restore some sanity there.
NLRB, DOL, OFCCP, AND EEOC.
Quote from: #UnleashWally on November 10, 2016, 12:38:03 AM
Well this was civil up until the last two pages. Thanks for ruining a decent conversation boys.
It was civil the whole day until...the arrival of Chicos. Shocking. I'm glad the mods gave us the opportunity to kick some things around with each other yesterday and keep it civil but impassioned, before the thread was hijacked.
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 10, 2016, 12:11:51 AM
Nevermind. You're just too sensitive to have any real discussion with.
I disagree with you completely. That has nothing to do with sensitivity.
Quote from: buckchuckler on November 10, 2016, 12:07:24 AM
I got your point, it was just terrible.
If you truly can't understand, you probably have no diversity of thought among your social group. Instead of just insulting giant groups of people, maybe try to understand them.
I can completely understand why certain people who voted for Trump feel the way that they do. You couldn't be more off base in terms of my social group.
What is not acceptable to me is the man they cast their ballot for. And that has nothing to do with politics, left vs. right, etc.
Quote from: real chili 83 on November 10, 2016, 07:22:50 AM
NLRB, DOL, OFCCP, AND EEOC.
I deal with all of them (although not as much with OFCCP). You can certainly add OSHA to the list too (but you may have been including them in DOL). In my experience, none of the others even remotely compare to what is going on with NLRB. EEOC and DOL are being a bit activist, but NLRB is out of control.
I deal with the NLRB less, but I understand your point. They have an agenda.
Quote from: rocket surgeon on November 10, 2016, 04:30:04 AM
"I do consider anyone who did cast a ballot for him to be wholly uninformed, an idiot, or both. The question is how much damage he will be able to do to our country in the 4 years before he is voted out"
and you don't see the elitism/i know better attitude here? many felt this same way about 2008 and 2012. the years of the new normal. how much damage has been done to our country over the last 8 years? this is why you have trump. he kicked PC in the teeth and was saying so many things, we the people were expecting some of the pols to say. remember debate #1 or 2 between obama and romney? romney got after obamam on some sensitive subjects and his ratings soared. the next 1 or 2, romney settled down and guess what? he lost
I'm not an elitist. My position is based on the type of person Trump is and his lack of experience to lead a country.
I hope I'm wrong about him. I don't expect that to be the case.
Y'all just need ta take a chill pill. Dis isn't vaguely close ta Nazi Germany. We will all be just fine and so will da country. I have full confidence in the man, his ability to surround himself wit good people, and to make good decisions, in da best interest, for da country he loves. Prosperity is a beautiful thang and I feel he gives us da best opportunity to experience that.
I can excuse da younguns for der naivety and pollyanna view of da world. They will learn wit time. But, y'all old farts should be embarrassed at your reaction to da election's outcome when da Dem's candidate would have fooked dis wonderful country beyond repair.
Quote from: CTWarrior on November 09, 2016, 02:51:34 PM
But adding the two extra electoral votes to each state skews the value of individual votes in favor of the residents of smaller states.
The Electoral College - I was thinking about this more last night. I certainly don't want to eliminate it, but I don't want to see a differing popular vote winner become commonplace.
There are 435 representatives and that number is currently capped and the districts are redrawn every ten years, so each rep = approximately the same number in population. In the Electoral College the number becomes distorted with the addition of the 2 Senators to the number. Throughout American history, the size of the HoR increased and not simply because states were added. Perhaps it's time to increase the size of the HoR. More reps should decrease gerrymandering by forcing more geographic areas and will reduce the numerical difference in each Electoral College weighted vote numbers. Thoughts?
I'm thinking it means more reps and Electoral votes in California, Texas, Florida and growth South & Western states while maintaining the smaller states 3 to 4 EC votes.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on November 10, 2016, 07:18:07 AM
I think one of the most interesting stories of the election is the fundamental shift in the blue collar/union vote in PA, OH, MI and WI. For decades these votes have been reliably blue. Living in Ohio, I first saw this in the eastern-most part of the state. This three county corridor from Ashtabula up by Lake Erie and down through Youngstown definitely leans heavily democrat. Tuesday two went for Trump and the third was soft for Clinton. It's the same thing that played out in the rest of the much-discussed "Blue Wall" of PA, MI and WI.
It will be very interesting to see what comes of this. Trump managed to appeal to a voting block that has been very reliable over the years. His, "what have they done for you" message resonated with them. If he can deliver anything to them, he may keep them. If not, they may return to the fold. Much of what is ailing the rust belt is a difficult fix, so we'll see how it goes.
Trump's win may be a bit of a double whammy for the unions. In addition to losing sway over their members (as discussed above), he may well rein in the extraordinarily pro-Union NLRB. I deal with a lot of federal agencies in my day to day life. Many have shown noticeable shifts over the last eight years, and that is to be expected. But the NLRB is really off the tracks right now. I certainly hope that becomes one of the new administration's agenda items and they restore some sanity there.
I think this tweet from Sen. Ben Sasse says more.
Fascinating #s
R vote down
But D down much more
08Obama 69M
12Obama 66M
04Bush 62M
12Romney 61M
8McCain 60M
16Clinton 59.6M
16Trump 59.4M
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 10, 2016, 07:49:15 AM
I'm not an elitist. My position is based on the type of person Trump is and his lack of experience to lead a country.
I hope I'm wrong about him. I don't expect that to be the case.
You do realize that other people have just as strong of opinions of Hillary as you do Donald. They are both deplorable human beings. They are both unfit to lead this country. They are both lying, conniving, back stabbing elitists.
And yet, 96% of you (who voted) voted for one or the other. Don't whine about how the other candidate is horrible and your candidate is God's Gift (actually, I don't think he's eligible yet). You're all to blame in my book. Except chick... I think she may be the only one here who actually voted on principle (I assume). The rest of you have only lent credence to and perpetuated a system where this year will be the new bar for our presidential candidates.
If ever there was going to be a year where a third party could gain traction, not to mention the 5% necessary for federal campaign funding, this was it. But instead of voting to improve our government, 96% of you voted for the two party system. What is ruining this country is binary politics... nay, strike that.... what's ruining this country is the 96% of you who are too dumb, too arrogant or too greedy to understand what this country needs to heal and improve is the obliteration of the two-party system.
But no... instead of voting with your heads and hearts, 96% of you voted against fear, uncertainty and doubt, and in your shortsightedness, you failed to realize you were actually voting for more of it.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 10, 2016, 08:08:29 AM
I think this tweet from Sen. Ben Sasse says more.
Fascinating #s
R vote down
But D down much more
08Obama 69M
12Obama 66M
04Bush 62M
12Romney 61M
8McCain 60M
16Clinton 59.6M
16Trump 59.4M
This in addition to the demographic splits I saw are the best way to see the causals of the result. Very telling
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 10, 2016, 07:49:15 AM
I'm not an elitist. My position is based on the type of person Trump is and his lack of experience to lead a country.
I hope I'm wrong about him. I don't expect that to be the case.
I think a huge aspect of this election is exactly the point that you raise: "experience to lead a country." Exactly what experience is relevant? For years, there was a debate over whether governors or senators made better presidents. Many felt that governors were better because they had executive experience -- they'd run things before. Others felt the legislative experience was better -- they new how to make deals and get things through Congress. But, the debate was always about what type of
political experience was better.
Many believe Washington is broken. In many people's opinion, Trump was the only candidate who
might fix it. Whether he can -- or will even try -- is an entirely different question. For people who think that way, Hillary Clinton was the absolute worst possible candidate to run against Trump. Many view Clinton as the complete embodiment of everything that is wrong with and broken about Washington. She simply never stood a chance with those voters. Clinton lost the election because she assumed that those voters are all racist/sexist idiots. If the Dems' takeaway from this election is that they lost because Trump's voters are sexist/racist idiots, they've got a problem. A huge number of Trump's supporters are decent, intelligent and sincere Americans who believe that our country severely broken and needs to be fixed. While I understand entirely the claims about hypocrisy, I suspect that obstructionism for the sake of obstructionism (or for the sake of revenge) may be harmful for the democrats. I also think that ramrodding things through just because he can and not trying to reach across the aisle could be harmful for Trump and the republicans. I think voters want to see Washington working again. I think that is what many who voted for Trump hope that is what they were voting for. They view him as a "hope and change" candidate. He may prove to be a terrible vehicle for those hopes and dreams, but he was the best one available.
But, back to the original point...what gives a person the experience to lead a country? A fairly significant portion of the public decided to take a chance to see if leadership in the private sector will translate to leadership in Washington.
I also hope you're wrong about him. I guess we'll find out.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 10, 2016, 08:06:09 AM
The Electoral College - I was thinking about this more last night. I certainly don't want to eliminate it, but I don't want to see a differing popular vote winner become commonplace.
There are 435 representatives and that number is currently capped and the districts are redrawn every ten years, so each rep = approximately the same number in population. In the Electoral College the number becomes distorted with the addition of the 2 Senators to the number. Throughout American history, the size of the HoR increased and not simply because states were added. Perhaps it's time to increase the size of the HoR. More reps should decrease gerrymandering by forcing more geographic areas and will reduce the numerical difference in each Electoral College weighted vote numbers. Thoughts?
I'm thinking it means more reps and Electoral votes in California, Texas, Florida and growth South & Western states while maintaining the smaller states 3 to 4 EC votes.
The problem is that its hard enough to get stuff done in the House right now with 435 members, most of which don't really do anything but fundraise. Maybe if the goal is to make it more proportional, you only give each state one vote PLUS one for each Representative.
This would essentially reduce the EC by 51 (including DC). So instead of 538, it would be 487.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on November 10, 2016, 08:08:29 AM
I think this tweet from Sen. Ben Sasse says more.
Fascinating #s
R vote down
But D down much more
08Obama 69M
12Obama 66M
04Bush 62M
12Romney 61M
8McCain 60M
16Clinton 59.6M
16Trump 59.4M
That is interesting. A part of the story -- maybe a small part -- is the 4-5 million votes for third party candidates this year. Splitting those up would put both candidates' results up into the range that we had been seeing for candidates not named Obama over the last few elections.
Quote from: MU82 on November 09, 2016, 10:57:46 PM
I'm not questioning the citizenry. I'm questioning the man himself.
Dust up? Trump said so himself! It wasn't a made-up story. Trump said it!
He said he would let us know if he would accept the results. He never said he would not, nor did he say he would. It appears he has accepted them. It is unfortunate to see the so many not accepting the results. The clamor now that he be assassinated, blatant hopes for this on the news last night. Astonishing, more maybe it isn't.
Or maybe you are attacking the birther comments. We agree, not something he should have done. I would properly point out that Hillary's campaign pushed that long before Trump ever did.
.
Quote from: Benny B on November 10, 2016, 08:14:47 AM
You do realize that other people have just as strong of opinions of Hillary as you do Donald. They are both deplorable human beings. They are both unfit to lead this country. They are both lying, conniving, back stabbing elitists.
And yet, 96% of you (who voted) voted for one or the other. Don't whine about how the other candidate is horrible and your candidate is God's Gift (actually, I don't think he's eligible yet). You're all to blame in my book. Except chick... I think she may be the only one here who actually voted on principle (I assume). The rest of you have only lent credence to and perpetuated a system where this year will be the new bar for our presidential candidates.
If ever there was going to be a year where a third party could gain traction, not to mention the 5% necessary for federal campaign funding, this was it. But instead of voting to improve our government, 96% of you voted for the two party system. What is ruining this country is binary politics... nay, strike that.... what's ruining this country is the 96% of you who are too dumb, too arrogant or too greedy to understand what this country needs to heal and improve is the obliteration of the two-party system.
But no... instead of voting with your heads and hearts, 96% of you voted against fear, uncertainty and doubt, and in your shortsightedness, you failed to realize you were actually voting for more of it.
I voted Libertarian, whose candidate was not exactly a MENSA member, precisely for the federal funding reason because they were the party most likely to reach 5%, Like you and many others, I found both major party candidates to be deplorable. My wife voted Green Party. I still don't understand why, in this of all elections, voters didn't make a statement by voting more for other parties.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on November 10, 2016, 08:02:21 AM
Y'all just need ta take a chill pill. Dis isn't vaguely close ta Nazi Germany. We will all be just fine and so will da country. I have full confidence in the man, his ability to surround himself wit good people, and to make good decisions, in da best interest, for da country he loves. Prosperity is a beautiful thang and I feel he gives us da best opportunity to experience that.
I can excuse da younguns for der naivety and pollyanna view of da world. They will learn wit time. But, y'all old farts should be embarrassed at your reaction to da election's outcome when da Dem's candidate would have fooked dis wonderful country beyond repair.
You're funny, based on your 2nd paragraph I bet you wouldn't have posted that 1st paragraph if Clinton won.
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 09, 2016, 10:31:00 PM
Your team blew it. She was rejected wholeheartedly by the American voters.
This is what pisses me off. Every conservative seems to be under this delusion that she was rejected by American voters just stop. She won the majority (ok plurality) of voters not Trump, Trump just played the chess game better
Quote from: CTWarrior on November 10, 2016, 08:42:25 AM
I voted Libertarian, whose candidate was not exactly a MENSA member, precisely for the federal funding reason because they were the party most likely to reach 5%, Like you and many others, I found both major party candidates to be deplorable. My wife voted Green Party. I still don't understand why, in this of all elections, voters didn't make a statement by voting more for other parties.
Because while people say they want third parties, I don't think they really do.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 09, 2016, 10:55:42 PM
I'm not out of touch in the least. Nor did I label all those who voted for him as bigoted racists. However a fair number certainly are.
I do consider anyone who did cast a ballot for him to be wholly uninformed, an idiot, or both. The question is how much damage he will be able to do to our country in the 4 years before he is voted out
Donald is no more misogynistic than Hillary and I'm the one that's out of touch? Thanks for the laugh.
Yes, actually you are. The establishment, media, liberals, are all out of touch. That is why you lost, you are out of touch with what America has voted for. Michael Moore, whom I suspect you align with, could not have said it any better.
What shows you to be further out of touch, in my opinion, is your attacks on those that voted for him. That is an elitist, snob attitude that your opinion is more informed, more valued than theirs. That, puts you out of touch. I'm glad you are laughing, but you really may want to reconsider what you are saying.
How much damage was Obama able to do? $8 trillion debt now at $20 trillion. Obamacare. Massive weakening of enforcement of immigration laws. People said enough. You don't agree with them, which is your right, but both sides will make claims that the other has damaged the country. An election was held Tuesday, and those that are out of touch, lost. Today, those out of touch people can either come together, or continue to complain, thumb their nose at real Americans (many of which were died in the wool Democrats) voted against the liberal policies that you hold dear. That means, you are out of touch.
A good read for those who want to leave the country.
http://www.wweek.com/culture/2016/11/09/my-family-left-the-united-states-because-of-the-bush-presidency-and-it-didnt-make-our-lives-any-better/
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 10, 2016, 08:44:05 AM
This is what pisses me off. Every conservative seems to be under this delusion that she was rejected by American voters just stop. She won the majority (ok plurality) of voters not Trump, Trump just played the chess game better
This is a nonsensical argument. How many Republicans even bother to show up to vote in New York or California? They don't, so that is why you see big victories in popular voting in those states.
What you should be looking at is the reliably presidential Democrat blue states that rejected 4 more years of Obama, rejected her completely. Michigan. Wisconsin, Pennslyvania, almost Minnesota (can you believe that?). Not only did he play the game better, but large swaths of your voting blocs said enough. Blue collar especially. Women didn't come home to her. Hispanic voting increased share for him. African American voting increased share for him. I'd add that if it was simply about him playing better chess, does that mean Ron Johnson did, too? How about the predictions that the Democrats would take over the Senate? Were they all outplayed in chess? Or did people say enough?
Quote from: rocket surgeon on November 10, 2016, 04:41:46 AM
i think many here need to brush up on their definition of the word "racism" it's a label that is thrown around a little to loosely today and dilutes what racism really is. it is a powerful word indeed and it's used more as a conversation stopper than anything
You could not be more right. When I see people loosely throw around that term it sickens me. They have totally devalued the word and the meaning. If Trump was a racist, then he would not receive 30% of the Hispanic vote. People of color know what true racism is, and it isn't an assigned word to be used as weapon, which is what is has become by the media and left in this country. These people do not know what real racism is, but they will attempt to tar and feather people. Worse, try being called an Uncle Tom.
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 09, 2016, 09:39:17 PM
It is a bad thing, a horrible thing. Did you not notice the amount of visits by both candidates to New Hampshire, tiny NH the last three weeks? Or Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada? That doesn't happen without the electoral college.
Clinton actually never visited WI after the primary. Oh wait, maybe ....
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 10, 2016, 08:50:24 AM
This is a nonsensical argument. How many Republicans even bother to show up to vote in New York or California? They don't, so that is why you see big victories in popular voting in those states.
What you should be looking at is the reliably presidential Democrat blue states that rejected 4 more years of Obama, rejected her completely. Michigan. Wisconsin, Pennslyvania, almost Minnesota (can you believe that?). Not only did he play the game better, but large swaths of your voting blocs said enough. Blue collar especially. Women didn't come home to her. Hispanic voting increased share for him. African American voting increased share for him. I'd add that if it was simply about him playing better chess, does that mean Ron Johnson did, too? How about the predictions that the Democrats would take over the Senate? Were they all outplayed in chess? Or did people say enough?
You realize your argument can be made about democrats to... or are you just blind to the other side of your argument?
The point is you specifically said "American voters rejected her" that eliminates anybody who stayed home anyways and refers only to those that voted. You can't be talking about voters and then suddenly say "well what about those that didn't vote?!" That's not a thing. Those who voted did not reject her they voted for her, he just played the game better.
Quote from: #UnleashWally on November 10, 2016, 12:38:03 AM
Well this was civil up until the last two pages. Thanks for ruining a decent conversation boys.
Yup. lol
Maybe some saw Frank Luntz' focus group of voters on 60 Minutes this Sunday. He had a cross section voter group that argued, and spoke over each other with vitriol. When asked he said this is worse than its ever been before but common with voters of all leanings. Why?
The story suggested that with social media, tweets, blogs, boards, folks just texting each other etc....we all have....and control our own outlets to be heard from our private digital islands...and many in the USA are simply intent on yelling out (figuratively ) their viewpoint. One could note a strong undercurrent in this election, ...on both sides,... of folks who were pressing just to have their views heard.
Is this all good?
Too soon to tell. The change I see is that where on many issues it seemed to me we were making steady progress over decades,... and now with the raw discourse and universal access to the debate...well,...it now seems maybe that such progress was more perception than ultimate reality. (Alternatively...the progress may actually be still occurring but all of us media chatting/arguing creates an inaccurate impression things are worse, or more split among us, than they actually are...Media has blurred and given me less confidence....not more ....that I accurately understand what progress is actually being made).
Regardless,...Civilized governance is dependent on continued discourse, and an ever evolving social contract (Burke) ....but it may be hard to currently see what is the status of our current general social contract (ie commonality of agreement) .
I am guessing we are in a technology adjusting anomalous time. We will adjust and survive.
FDR could get on a radio and speak to all....there wasn't much media give and take ....so we got in line....admiring our unified accomplishments.
Three TV networks used to mostly say and report similar angles...and we nostalgically remember unified days post WWII and in 50s early 60s.
Then Vietnam/race/Watergate had goverments/institutions saying one side and an energized rebellious populace was shown on the same media to be in opposite revolt. We passed some laws, stopped a war, and pushed out a president.....its never been the same....
media exploded, 24 hour news, the internet.....now media is everywhere....no one person or small group can or ever will be able again to announce /sway our social contract....How and who will form/enunciate the social contract going forward?..it an unsolved evolving issue.
Today its pretty hairy to figure out how we'll continue discourse and any sense of social contract formulation with hundreds of millions of us able to access and throw in our two cents instantly in the debate.
My guess history will note this period as an adjustment of technology/communication and we will figure it out. Now, its frustrating and like a teenager with a car....we are all enjoying the freedom and adventure of taking out mass discourse for a spin. Still...We are vested, connected, and concerned about our mutual future. We will get over the teenage need to scream....improve our listening and we will always eventually devise more workable methods to reach the common good of social contract (Optimism)....or it just all will get worse and eventually all kill each other (apocalyptic pessimism-- lol).
I remain an optimist
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on November 10, 2016, 09:01:24 AM
Clinton actually never visited WI after the primary. Oh wait, maybe ....
Bill Clinton visited here. Same thing as far as I am concerned. To the point that they were campaigning that you vote for one, you get both. They didn't hide that at all. Two presidents for the price of one. Bill was here in October. Biden came here to Madison.
Quote from: Benny B on November 10, 2016, 08:14:47 AM
You do realize that other people have just as strong of opinions of Hillary as you do Donald. They are both deplorable human beings. They are both unfit to lead this country. They are both lying, conniving, back stabbing elitists.
And yet, 96% of you (who voted) voted for one or the other. Don't whine about how the other candidate is horrible and your candidate is God's Gift (actually, I don't think he's eligible yet). You're all to blame in my book. Except chick... I think she may be the only one here who actually voted on principle (I assume). The rest of you have only lent credence to and perpetuated a system where this year will be the new bar for our presidential candidates.
If ever there was going to be a year where a third party could gain traction, not to mention the 5% necessary for federal campaign funding, this was it. But instead of voting to improve our government, 96% of you voted for the two party system. What is ruining this country is binary politics... nay, strike that.... what's ruining this country is the 96% of you who are too dumb, too arrogant or too greedy to understand what this country needs to heal and improve is the obliteration of the two-party system.
But no... instead of voting with your heads and hearts, 96% of you voted against fear, uncertainty and doubt, and in your shortsightedness, you failed to realize you were actually voting for more of it.
First, and this isn't directed to you specifically, I was wrong to generalize an
entire voter base.
One of the comments you made is something I've seen quite often that I have a problem with. My issues with Trump and those who voted for him does not make Clinton "my candidate". I absolutely understand why people may find her deplorable, unlikable, or untrustworthy. Too often people fall back on criticism of Clinton instead of substantive defenses of Trump.
Quote from: houwarrior on November 10, 2016, 09:13:35 AM
Yup. lol
Maybe some saw Frank Luntz' focus group of voters on 60 Minutes this Sunday. He had a cross section voter group that argued, and spoke over each other with vitriol. When asked he said this is worse than its ever been before but common with voters of all leanings. Why?
The story suggested that with social media, tweets, blogs, boards, folks just texting each other etc....we all have....and control our own outlets to be heard from our private digital islands...and many in the USA are simply intent on yelling out (figuratively ) their viewpoint. One could note a strong undercurrent in this election, ...on both sides,... of folks who were pressing just to have their views heard.
Is this all good?
Too soon to tell. The change I see is that where on many issues it seemed to me we were making steady progress over decades,... and now with the raw discourse and universal access to the debate...well,...it now seems maybe that such progress was more perception than ultimate reality. (Alternatively...the progress may actually be still occurring but all of us media chatting/arguing creates an inaccurate impression things are worse, or more split among us, than they actually are...Media has blurred and given me less confidence....not more ....that I accurately understand what progress is actually being made).
Regardless,...Civilized governance is dependent on continued discourse, and an ever evolving social contract (Burke) ....but it may be hard to currently see what is the status of our current general social contract (ie commonality of agreement) .
I am guessing we are in a technology adjusting anomalous time. We will adjust and survive.
FDR could get on a radio and speak to all....there wasn't much media give and take ....so we got in line....admiring our unified accomplishments.
Three TV networks used to mostly say and report similar angles...and we nostalgically remember unified days post WWII and in 50s early 60s.
Then Vietnam/race/Watergate had goverments/institutions saying one side and an energized rebellious populace was shown on the same media to be in opposite revolt. We passed some laws, stopped a war, and pushed out a president.....its never been the same....
media exploded, 24 hour news, the internet.....now media is everywhere....no one person or small group can or ever will be able again to announce /sway our social contract....How and who will form/enunciate the social contract going forward?..it an unsolved evolving issue.
Today its pretty hairy to figure out how we'll continue discourse and any sense of social contract formulation with hundreds of millions of us able to access and throw in our two cents instantly in the debate.
My guess history will note this period as an adjustment of technology/communication and we will figure it out. Now, its frustrating and like a teenager with a car....we are all enjoying the freedom and adventure of taking out mass discourse for a spin. Still...We are vested, connected, and concerned about our mutual future. We will get over the teenage need to scream....improve our listening and we will always eventually devise more workable methods to reach the common good of social contract (Optimism)....or it just all will get worse and eventually all kill each other (apocalyptic pessimism-- lol).
I remain an optimist
Houston - Check the latest
Atlantic with the story on
How Social Media Got Weaponized.
Quote from: BagpipingBoxer on November 10, 2016, 09:04:51 AM
You realize your argument can be made about democrats to... or are you just blind to the other side of your argument?
The point is you specifically said "American voters rejected her" that eliminates anybody who stayed home anyways and refers only to those that voted. You can't be talking about voters and then suddenly say "well what about those that didn't vote?!" That's not a thing. Those who voted did not reject her they voted for her, he just played the game better.
We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. She was rejected by the American voters. There was no game played, the board has been laid out for over 200 years. This is why I offered an example of the Senate races, which are pure popularity votes. Americans rejected Democrats there, too.
Quote from: Vander Blue Man Group on November 10, 2016, 09:26:04 AM
First, and this isn't directed to you specifically, I was wrong to generalize an entire voter base.
One of the comments you made is something I've seen quite often that I have a problem with. My issues with Trump and those who voted for him does not make Clinton "my candidate". I absolutely understand why people may find her deplorable, unlikable, or untrustworthy. Too often people fall back on criticism of Clinton instead of substantive defenses of Trump.
Obama's own brother voted for Trump. So did millions of minorities and working class people. Because you have a view point of the world, doesn't mean you get to transfer it to them. Or call them racist. Or uninformed. Those votes from those people were accepted with open arms in 2012 and 2008, but now that they have chosen to pick a different path, they are uninformed, uneducated, racist, bigoted?
You can do better than that. Out of touch.
Quote from: Badgerhoney on November 10, 2016, 09:28:55 AM
We are a constitutional republic, not a democracy. She was rejected by the American voters. There was no game played, the board has been laid out for over 200 years. This is why I offered an example of the Senate races, which are pure popularity votes. Americans rejected Democrats there, too.
Which means the voters rejected the senators. I'm honestly curious when you see that she beat him in popular vote does your head just not comprehend that? Do you go around in circles thinking "well voters stayed home... wait then they aren't voters... well democratic senators won so the people didn't vote for her... wait but she has more votes than Trump..." Jesus Christ. I'm not arguing that he didn't win fair and square, I'm not arguing anything about the senate I'm simply stating a fact and that fact is of the population that voted in 2016 she received more votes thus making your statement that the majority of American voters rejected her invalid.
These are genuine, salt of the earth people. Minorities, whites, former Democrats, independents. Some are more educated than others, but their votes were loved when they voted for Obama, Kerry, Gore. They were educated enough then.
Watch the number of former Democrats that turned away. Bernie supporters upset. On the GOP side, they should note how many of these people are voting for Trump, not the GOP.
Didn't see many of these videos by the mainstream press leading up to the election? Did you? But we saw 1000's of people show up to rallies, very few to Hillary's. Despite this, the media and pundits said Hillary in a landslide.
Listen to these people. You out of touch not to recognize this.
https://www.youtube.com/v/Nxh6_yW8qo4
Alright folks. This has served it's purpose. Back to basketball...