US Politics Thread

[britbox]

They need to get rid of that electoral college since the popular vote is the will of the people.

I can see an argument for getting rid of the electoral college but it doesn't necessarily mean the popular vote would stay the same... and it definitely would change the campaigning and electioneering process. At the moment candidates throw the majority of their resources behind a handful of swing states. Under the electoral system, you'll have voters who don't bother turning out because they think their votes are basically pointless in states where the other party dominates.

In the UK and most other western democracies, there is a similar system in place where it's First Past the Post in individual seats (rather like the Congress and Senate, I guess). For example, you had a party like UKIP who got close on 4 million UK votes (nearly 13% of the whole electorate) and got one seat out 650.

UK Parties like the Liberal Democrats who up until 2015 used to get between 17 and 25% of the popular vote would only secure between 3% and 10% of the seats in parliament.

The LibDems pushed for a form of alternative vote system and it got voted down by the British public. Personally, I always thought their percentage was boosted a lot by protest votes trying to stop either Labour or Conservative prevailing in a specific seat. In a real hand count of support, I suspect they'd have got far less than they assumed.

For a presidential election - I think the straight hand count makes more sense, but the results won't be a mirror image of what you see in the current format and also you'd have to start considering looking at primaries in the same context. I think you'd see a massive change in the primaries (or one big primary) if that happened.

 

[britbox]

Not one d*mn plan, and the experts are scratching their heads as to how he can fulfill his campaign promises. It's all a crock of manure. People will see.

He's actually proposed some things regarding internal investment, taxation, economic and foreign policy that are far more radical than any other president in recent memory. It's going to be a bumpy road ahead but now certainly isn't the time to judge him on policy... because the media narrative has been to focus only on the negative racism stuff without paying heed to anything else... and it's clearly worked based on a lot of comments.

 

[Tennis Fan]

I can see an argument for getting rid of the electoral college but it doesn't necessarily mean the popular vote would stay the same... and it definitely would change the campaigning and electioneering process. At the moment candidates throw the majority of their resources behind a handful of swing states. Under the electoral system, you'll have voters who don't bother turning out because they think their votes are basically pointless in states where the other party dominates.

In the UK and most other western democracies, there is a similar system in place where it's First Past the Post in individual seats (rather like the Congress and Senate, I guess). For example, you had a party like UKIP who got close on 4 million UK votes (nearly 13% of the whole electorate) and got one seat out 650.

UK Parties like the Liberal Democrats who up until 2015 used to get between 17 and 25% of the popular vote would only secure between 3% and 10% of the seats in parliament.

The LibDems pushed for a form of alternative vote system and it got voted down by the British public. Personally, I always thought their percentage was boosted a lot by protest votes trying to stop either Labour or Conservative prevailing in a specific seat. In a real hand count of support, I suspect they'd have got far less than they assumed.

For a presidential election - I think the straight hand count makes more sense, but the results won't be a mirror image of what you see in the current format and also you'd have to start considering looking at primaries in the same context. I think you'd see a massive change in the primaries (or one big primary) if that happened.

Actually it's the reverse. Many people don't want to vote because the electoral college governs the vote. Even if the people vote, in some states the electoral college still reserves the right to vote against the candidate. The problem is that many don't feel that their votes count since the electorate is so heavily involved.

 

[britbox]

Actually it's the reverse. Many people don't want to vote because the electoral college governs the vote. Even if the people vote, in some states the electoral college still reserves the right to vote against the candidate. The problem is that many don't feel that their votes count since the electorate is so heavily involved.

Fair point, but I wouldn't say it was the reverse... more a combination of the two.

 

[Tennis Fan]

Fair point, but I wouldn't say it was the reverse... more a combination of the two.

It's why we have such a hard time getting young people to vote. They think their vote doesn't count.

 

[britbox]

It's why we have such a hard time getting young people to vote. They think their vote doesn't count.

I live in Oz and people have to vote here... if you don't vote, you get fined. An interesting model.

 

[Tennis Fan]

I live in Oz and people have to vote here... if you don't vote, you get fined. An interesting model.

Wow! Nope you don't have to vote here, but it would be difficult to forcibly enforce it as there is voter intimidation, threats at the polls, faulty election machines, thousands of votes thrown out, or hidden. It's hard to ever trust an election TBH. So, that's why. People were warning people all over my feeds to check their votes twice. A friend of mine voted for Hillary and it said Trump. She took it to the election official who "fixed" it and voted again. Again it came back Trump. It took her four votes to finally vote for Hillary, that's the kind of elections we have, and let's mention the word chads.

 

[Federberg]

"britbox, post: 37413, member: 2"]I've asked in a previous post, if there was ever an uglier campaign? And when I mean campaign... I mean BOTH campaigns AND the media coverage of them. Trump said plenty of ugly things, Clinton has more skeletons in her closet then Freddie Kreuger and the Wikileaks stuff was quite damning.

I actually didn't see much in the Wikileaks stuff that was damning. I'm genuinely interested to know what you think was outside the norm. I imagine if any campaign through out history had been exposed like that there would be similar revelations. These are just political professionals having an unfiltered conversation. Most of the stuff can be read in a way that's determined by the bias of the reader

Ricardo mentioned about the shallowness of the analysis - it's a fair point - most of the media coverage was about political correctness.

You lost me when you mentioned the kid's name I can't take anything he says seriously, sorry mate. Way to make a point cogent!

Sure, Hillary is more politically correct in public... a lot more... she's more politically savvy, but then we read of her talking about droning people in private... not to mention a ton of historical stuff...

Again, all you do here is expose your distaste for Clinton. You can't on the one hand say that she's politically savvy and then on the other seriously imply that she would recommend droning someone in anything other than jest. It wasn't in such a private setting, and even if we disbelieve her claim to not recollect saying that. Do you really believe she would say that with real intent in such an unfiltered arena? This is the woman who is as pathological about her privacy and she's saying it in front of operatives that are not part of her clique? I just don't buy it, and it's instructive that you're so willing to

You highlight a blase attitude about Trump's rants involving racism and sexism... I'm not blase about it, but to go down to that level of debate, I am less blase about comments that involve killing people. Also, Clinton brought nothing new to the table, just an extension of the status quo... another from the conveyer belt of average dynastic families who have either been in the whitehouse or occupied a secretary of state role for over 3 decades. Trump is generalising, but some of his proposals are quite radical, certainly for business, foreign policy and trade. Maybe nothing will change... but at least there was something different on the table.

I found the whole dynastic politics thing extremely distasteful and I hope you'll acknowledge that I've pointed that out many times before. Way before we got into the meat of the campaign. I won't go into your comments about HRC and killing people, I've already covered that. But I hope you're not giving Trump a pass on that? I'll grant you some of Trump's policies were interesting. I hope as a change agent he eliminates gerrymandering, if he does nothing else in his Presidency that one thing alone will do more to secure American democracy than almost anything else he can do. We shall see. But... and this is one of my frustrations, and I don't even think you realise you do it. You take the parts of Trump's promises you agree with and pretend you know that the good things are what he really plans on doing and the bad things aren't serious. It's hard to have a debate when someone comes at you with essentially what's a leap of faith.

As for the left, no I wasn't talking about you - I was talking about sections of the left including the idiots rampaging around the streets... all organised by the way... and Soros is supposed to be one of the puppet masters. My guess is that you are looking to change the system with small incremental changes. I think the system is totally unsustainable - there is MASSIVE western debt...

I would have been perfectly happy with revolution. I think I've talked about my concerns regarding the global economy and the future. I've always said something needs to change But not one who's premise has been founded on racism and misogyny. It's easy for people who haven't faced discrimination to dismiss it all as not serious and showmanship. It takes real courage to try to walk in another's shoes. As for calling the protesters idiots? Why are they idiots? This is a natural consequence of fear. Again... you might not take Trump's polemic seriously but clearly a lot of people do. Why can't you respect that? These idiots by the way were in a majority in terms of the vote, even if they weren't in the electoral college. This my friend is democracy. Don't be so eager to plead conspiracy when your view is opposed, that's what fascists do

This stuff can't be perpetually kicked down the road... it's going to get worse and worse. There will be a global financial crash like no other at some point - it's probably too late already. 2008 will look like a friendly picnic in comparison. At least Trump has acknowledged it and discussed the issue... which HAS to involve a sea-change. Whether he can make any headway is an entirely different matter... whether he is the right man for that job (other stuff aside) remains to be seen... but there are a lot of things on the table that are more important than political correctness IMO. IF (and it's a big IF) Trump rebuilds the infrastructure of the US, goes someway to addressing the national debt, puts the conditions in place to bring jobs back the US then that outweights stupid rhetoric from his electioneering.

I agree, there is a serious risk that things get worse and worse. Actually the US is the one shining light at the moment. As I've mentioned before, if you look throughout history, recoveries from financial crises are always slow and painful. This time is no different. If I have one fear regarding what Trump has said he'll do, it's on global trade. The one fundamental difference between now and the Great Depression was that then, countries put tariffs up and that was what led to disaster. I pray he doesn't precipitate the same, because if that happens everything goes down the pooper...

 

[teddytennisfan]

rt.com
Trump won because Clinton & her supporters refused to live in the real world
Danielle Ryan is an Irish freelance writer, journalist and media analyst. She has lived and traveled extensively in the US, Germany, Russia and Hungary. Her byline has appeared at RT, The Nation, Rethinking Russia, The BRICS Post, New Eastern Outlook, Global Independent Analytics and many others. She also works on copywriting and editing projects. Follow her on Twitter or Facebook or at her website www.danielleryan.net.

The Washington establishment and its fans and defenders got their comeuppance this week, and they're finding it very difficult to get their heads around it.

Before we go any further, I should clarify that I'm no fan of Donald Trump, and like most people, I believed Clinton would win, so this isn't an opportunity to say 'I told you so.'

Nevertheless, it was always clear that Clinton's campaign strategy had some serious flaws. Most of us thought this would simply make it a tight race, but that Clinton would undoubtedly pull through. Now, however, the events of the aftermath – on top of the obvious mistakes already made – make the reasons Trump pulled off the shock victory clearer than ever.

Read more


It's not me, it's you
Liberals for Clinton spent this election doing three things that were entirely counter-productive and which now they should regret.

READ MORE: How Trump won the White House: Key moments of #Election2016

First, they ran a campaign which based itself less on issues and more on the fact that Trump doesn't appear to be a very nice person. Now, while this may be true and even seemed like a logical strategy at times (during p*ssy-grabbing-gate, for example), ultimately it's not how you win over or inspire people.

Second, instead of debating and engaging with people, a huge chunk of Hillary supporters decided anyone who didn't agree with them was a racist, sexist, uneducated waste of oxygen. In fact, their own candidate even appeared to back them up in this line of thinking by calling Trump supporters “deplorables.” Instead of sucking it up and realizing that their Trump friends had the right to an opinion – and were not necessarily racist and sexist – these overly sensitive souls ran off to their “safe spaces” where differing opinions couldn't reach them. This led to a lot of unfriending on Facebook, and probably a significant chunk of secret Trump voters who came out only in the privacy of the voting booth. As such, the polls that Clinton relied on to read the country's mood were almost all wrong. The refusal to acknowledge Trump supporters as human beings with their own, perhaps legitimate, reasons for favoring him was a major failure of the Clinton camp. This is much the same thing that happened in the UK with the Brexit vote.

Third, they played the blame game in a way that really backfired “big-league,” as Trump would say. If Trump's support had to be acknowledged, it must be blamed on anyone but Clinton or the status quo of American politics which she was trying to protect. Their favorite strategy in this regard was to blame Russia. This was odd because most Americans probably don't give a flying toss about Russia, but Vladimir Putin became the “secret mastermind” behind Trump's successes, not the fact that millions of ordinary Americans were hurting and feeling left behind and ignored by decades of policies which never seemed to take them into account.

Julian Assange and WikiLeaks were Putin's puppets, too. And so was Green Party candidate Jill Stein. They were all part of a massive Kremlin plot, you see. That's what you would have believed if you'd listened to some Clinton surrogates and fans in the media. It was real 'Russia ate my homework' level stuff – and it has likely flamed the fury of Clinton's supporters trying to come to terms with how they lost.

Can we have a do-over?
Not surprisingly, the blame game has continued in the aftermath of Clinton's loss, but now the main culprit is the Electoral College system, which has suddenly become the major focus of Clinton supporters who last week were perfectly happy with it.

Only the popular vote matters, they say. Clinton's loss isn't fair, they cry. Millions of them have signed petitions trying to have Clinton elected anyway. Unfortunately for the disappointed, signing petitions isn't how you elect a president – and it is truly fascinating how quickly liberals who love democracy seem to forget all about it when their candidate loses. Ask them if they would be complaining about the Electoral College and its fairness if Clinton had won and they quickly go quiet. There's another parallel here to the Brexit vote and how pro-EU voters tried to annul the majority's choice on the grounds that they were the “stupid masses.”

Sudden outrage and mass denial
Then there's the protesters; the people who have actually taken to the streets to dispute the outcome of a legitimate election simply because they don't fancy dealing with the result. The rather ironic theme seems to be: Trump is an evil fascist who hates democracy and will destroy America, so we need to violently overthrow him. Now, protesting is fine, it's their right to do so. Many people are legitimately worried about the kind of era Trump will usher in. But there's a kind of hypocrisy to it as well.

If you asked these liberal anti-Trump protesters why they weren't out protesting Obama's drone war, or his funding of terrorists in Syria, or Hillary's hand in the destruction of Libya, they'd barely know what you're talking about – which brings us finally to the media and its role in all of this.

Read more


Liberals weren't bothered by most of these things because the media told them not to be. Bombings under Obama were humanitarian airstrikes. The mainstream media made anti-war liberals fine with war because a nice man with a pretty family was dropping the bombs.

Journalists and pundits became so entrenched in their own perspective and bubble that they couldn't even mask their disbelief and anger over the outcome on election night. Literally until moments before the race was called for Trump, anchors and pundits were talking about Clinton's path to 270 delegates when, to anyone facing reality, it had been clear hours before that she probably didn't have one.

Trump's victory is beyond comprehension for Clinton supporters and the media because for so long they've failed to live in the real world where there are two sides to every story. There's a lesson there for anyone who wants to take it.

The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.

 

[britbox]

Responses in red type to your own responses in bold.

"britbox, post: 37413, member: 2"]I've asked in a previous post, if there was ever an uglier campaign? And when I mean campaign... I mean BOTH campaigns AND the media coverage of them. Trump said plenty of ugly things, Clinton has more skeletons in her closet then Freddie Kreuger and the Wikileaks stuff was quite damning.

I actually didn't see much in the Wikileaks stuff that was damning. I'm genuinely interested to know what you think was outside the norm. I imagine if any campaign through out history had been exposed like that there would be similar revelations. These are just political professionals having an unfiltered conversation. Most of the stuff can be read in a way that's determined by the bias of the reader

They aren't just "political professionals" having a chat. They were Clinton's campaign team including her chief Podesta, who is a major lobbyist for all the big corporations. It showed the complicity of the mass media in trying to put her in the White House, Hillary's tendencies to continually lie, her donors (more of that later)... These are out there in black and white.

Ricardo mentioned about the shallowness of the analysis - it's a fair point - most of the media coverage was about political correctness.

You lost me when you mentioned the kid's name I can't take anything he says seriously, sorry mate. Way to make a point cogent!

Every vote counts.

Sure, Hillary is more politically correct in public... a lot more... she's more politically savvy, but then we read of her talking about droning people in private... not to mention a ton of historical stuff...

Again, all you do here is expose your distaste for Clinton. You can't on the one hand say that she's politically savvy and then on the other seriously imply that she would recommend droning someone in anything other than jest. It wasn't in such a private setting, and even if we disbelieve her claim to not recollect saying that. Do you really believe she would say that with real intent in such an unfiltered arena? This is the woman who is as pathological about her privacy and she's saying it in front of operatives that are not part of her clique? I just don't buy it, and it's instructive that you're so willing to

I've never attempted to disguise my distaste for Hillary Clinton... there is no exposure as it's been laid out from the beginning of the thread. Am I bias? Yes, absolutely - never attempted to claim otherwise. I'm far from impartial.

Now, do I believe she would say that with real intent? or state such life and death statements with reckless abandon. Absolutely. She may have said it in jest (would Trump have got a pass on anything he said in jest? I think not.)... anyway Clinton is not somebody I would class as a humorous type in any event. Let me remind you of this little pearl...



How many thousands of Libyans died in that little episode @Federberg?

I'll even overlook the Clinton Dead Pool totally - http://www.nachumlist.com/hillarydeadpool.htm for the sake of reason.


You highlight a blase attitude about Trump's rants involving racism and sexism... I'm not blase about it, but to go down to that level of debate, I am less blase about comments that involve killing people. Also, Clinton brought nothing new to the table, just an extension of the status quo... another from the conveyer belt of average dynastic families who have either been in the whitehouse or occupied a secretary of state role for over 3 decades. Trump is generalising, but some of his proposals are quite radical, certainly for business, foreign policy and trade. Maybe nothing will change... but at least there was something different on the table.

I found the whole dynastic politics thing extremely distasteful and I hope you'll acknowledge that I've pointed that out many times before. Way before we got into the meat of the campaign. I won't go into your comments about HRC and killing people, I've already covered that. But I hope you're not giving Trump a pass on that? I'll grant you some of Trump's policies were interesting. I hope as a change agent he eliminates gerrymandering, if he does nothing else in his Presidency that one thing alone will do more to secure American democracy than almost anything else he can do. We shall see. But... and this is one of my frustrations, and I don't even think you realise you do it. You take the parts of Trump's promises you agree with and pretend you know that the good things are what he really plans on doing and the bad things aren't serious. It's hard to have a debate when someone comes at you with essentially what's a leap of faith.

I don't pretend anything of the sort. I've said they are interesting and radical and could potentially have a huge impact. I've got no idea whether he will introduce them... but my gut feeling tells me that he will make some radical changes. My argument was that Hillary brought nothing to the table.... whatsoever. She's a stooge of the big corporations and a total fraud IMO. The same women who preaches about Women's rights readily takes MILLIONS in donations from Saudi and Quatar for her foundation... literally MILLIONS....

One of The Clinton Foundations main pillars is "increasing opportunity for girls and women"... if you think Saudi and Quatar, where women are stoned to death are really investing in that foundation for the reasons given on the box, then more fool you.

As for the left, no I wasn't talking about you - I was talking about sections of the left including the idiots rampaging around the streets... all organised by the way... and Soros is supposed to be one of the puppet masters. My guess is that you are looking to change the system with small incremental changes. I think the system is totally unsustainable - there is MASSIVE western debt...

I would have been perfectly happy with revolution. I think I've talked about my concerns regarding the global economy and the future. I've always said something needs to change But not one who's premise has been founded on racism and misogyny. It's easy for people who haven't faced discrimination to dismiss it all as not serious and showmanship. It takes real courage to try to walk in another's shoes. As for calling the protesters idiots? Why are they idiots? This is a natural consequence of fear. Again... you might not take Trump's polemic seriously but clearly a lot of people do. Why can't you respect that? These idiots by the way were in a majority in terms of the vote, even if they weren't in the electoral college. This my friend is democracy. Don't be so eager to plead conspiracy when your view is opposed, that's what fascists do

Jeez, look at the footage of these "protesters" kicking the crap out of Trump voters. No, Federberg - democracy was Trump winning the vote. What these anarchists are doing is just plain violence. Kicking the shit out of people with a different view after you lost a vote isn't democracy. That's actually the stupidest thing you've said on this thread, sorry.

I'm guessing your "walking in another man's shoes" comment is an assumption that I have never faced any sort of discrimination. Don't be so quick to make assumptions Federberg.

This stuff can't be perpetually kicked down the road... it's going to get worse and worse. There will be a global financial crash like no other at some point - it's probably too late already. 2008 will look like a friendly picnic in comparison. At least Trump has acknowledged it and discussed the issue... which HAS to involve a sea-change. Whether he can make any headway is an entirely different matter... whether he is the right man for that job (other stuff aside) remains to be seen... but there are a lot of things on the table that are more important than political correctness IMO. IF (and it's a big IF) Trump rebuilds the infrastructure of the US, goes someway to addressing the national debt, puts the conditions in place to bring jobs back the US then that outweights stupid rhetoric from his electioneering.

I agree, there is a serious risk that things get worse and worse. Actually the US is the one shining light at the moment. As I've mentioned before, if you look throughout history, recoveries from financial crises are always slow and painful. This time is no different. If I have one fear regarding what Trump has said he'll do, it's on global trade. The one fundamental difference between now and the Great Depression was that then, countries put tariffs up and that was what led to disaster. I pray he doesn't precipitate the same, because if that happens everything goes down the pooper...

I think he will... but I've always said some sort of protectionsim will be neccessary. Free trade can be as damaging as it can be good. maybe not for traders like yourself... but the social contract with the big corps and the population has been broken. You still have to look after the little people.

 

[Federberg]

"britbox, post: 37478, member: 2"Responses in red type to your own responses in bold.

"britbox, post: 37413, member: 2"]I've asked in a previous post, if there was ever an uglier campaign? And when I mean campaign... I mean BOTH campaigns AND the media coverage of them. Trump said plenty of ugly things, Clinton has more skeletons in her closet then Freddie Kreuger and the Wikileaks stuff was quite damning.

I actually didn't see much in the Wikileaks stuff that was damning. I'm genuinely interested to know what you think was outside the norm. I imagine if any campaign through out history had been exposed like that there would be similar revelations. These are just political professionals having an unfiltered conversation. Most of the stuff can be read in a way that's determined by the bias of the reader

They aren't just "political professionals" having a chat. They were Clinton's campaign team including her chief Podesta, who is a major lobbyist for all the big corporations. It showed the complicity of the mass media in trying to put her in the White House, Hillary's tendencies to continually lie, her donors (more of that later)... These are out there in black and white.

You'll have to give me specific examples that were outside of the norm. I'm not arguing that Clinton is a font of honesty, I simply believe she is no more dishonest than the next politician. Trump however is way off the reservation

Ricardo mentioned about the shallowness of the analysis - it's a fair point - most of the media coverage was about political correctness.

You lost me when you mentioned the kid's name I can't take anything he says seriously, sorry mate. Way to make a point cogent!

Every vote counts.

Lol!

Sure, Hillary is more politically correct in public... a lot more... she's more politically savvy, but then we read of her talking about droning people in private... not to mention a ton of historical stuff...

Again, all you do here is expose your distaste for Clinton. You can't on the one hand say that she's politically savvy and then on the other seriously imply that she would recommend droning someone in anything other than jest. It wasn't in such a private setting, and even if we disbelieve her claim to not recollect saying that. Do you really believe she would say that with real intent in such an unfiltered arena? This is the woman who is as pathological about her privacy and she's saying it in front of operatives that are not part of her clique? I just don't buy it, and it's instructive that you're so willing to

I've never attempted to disguise my distaste for Hillary Clinton... there is no exposure as it's been laid out from the beginning of the thread. Am I bias? Yes, absolutely - never attempted to claim otherwise. I'm far from impartial.

Now, do I believe she would say that with real intent? or state such life and death statements with reckless abandon. Absolutely. She may have said it in jest (would Trump have got a pass on anything he said in jest? I think not.)... anyway Clinton is not somebody I would class as a humorous type in any event. Let me remind you of this little pearl...



How many thousands of Libyans died in that little episode @Federberg?

I'll even overlook the Clinton Dead Pool totally - http://www.nachumlist.com/hillarydeadpool.htm for the sake of reason.

It's not clear to me Trump didn't get a pass. What he did was genius, but he was aided and abetted by a truly incompetent 4th estate. Yes the press highlighted comments Trump made, but they never really challenged him on it.. Trump's genius was that he controlled the narrative, and tended to successfully shift the conversation to another controversy. Don't know if anyone else could pull it off, but it was hugely impressive... and frustrating

You highlight a blase attitude about Trump's rants involving racism and sexism... I'm not blase about it, but to go down to that level of debate, I am less blase about comments that involve killing people. Also, Clinton brought nothing new to the table, just an extension of the status quo... another from the conveyer belt of average dynastic families who have either been in the whitehouse or occupied a secretary of state role for over 3 decades. Trump is generalising, but some of his proposals are quite radical, certainly for business, foreign policy and trade. Maybe nothing will change... but at least there was something different on the table.

I found the whole dynastic politics thing extremely distasteful and I hope you'll acknowledge that I've pointed that out many times before. Way before we got into the meat of the campaign. I won't go into your comments about HRC and killing people, I've already covered that. But I hope you're not giving Trump a pass on that? I'll grant you some of Trump's policies were interesting. I hope as a change agent he eliminates gerrymandering, if he does nothing else in his Presidency that one thing alone will do more to secure American democracy than almost anything else he can do. We shall see. But... and this is one of my frustrations, and I don't even think you realise you do it. You take the parts of Trump's promises you agree with and pretend you know that the good things are what he really plans on doing and the bad things aren't serious. It's hard to have a debate when someone comes at you with essentially what's a leap of faith.

I don't pretend anything of the sort. I've said they are interesting and radical and could potentially have a huge impact. I've got no idea whether he will introduce them... but my gut feeling tells me that he will make some radical changes. My argument was that Hillary brought nothing to the table.... whatsoever. She's a stooge of the big corporations and a total fraud IMO. The same women who preaches about Women's rights readily takes MILLIONS in donations from Saudi and Quatar for her foundation... literally MILLIONS....

One of The Clinton Foundations main pillars is "increasing opportunity for girls and women"... if you think Saudi and Quatar, where women are stoned to death are really investing in that foundation for the reasons given on the box, then more fool you.

It's not clear to me that you can't take money from those guys and still promote good causes. I'm glad you conceded your bias, because that explains why your moral outrage is so one sided. I'll happily stipulate that she's no messiah, but I would argue that her policies even if I didn't agree with all of them were backed by good intentions

As for the left, no I wasn't talking about you - I was talking about sections of the left including the idiots rampaging around the streets... all organised by the way... and Soros is supposed to be one of the puppet masters. My guess is that you are looking to change the system with small incremental changes. I think the system is totally unsustainable - there is MASSIVE western debt...

I would have been perfectly happy with revolution. I think I've talked about my concerns regarding the global economy and the future. I've always said something needs to change But not one who's premise has been founded on racism and misogyny. It's easy for people who haven't faced discrimination to dismiss it all as not serious and showmanship. It takes real courage to try to walk in another's shoes. As for calling the protesters idiots? Why are they idiots? This is a natural consequence of fear. Again... you might not take Trump's polemic seriously but clearly a lot of people do. Why can't you respect that? These idiots by the way were in a majority in terms of the vote, even if they weren't in the electoral college. This my friend is democracy. Don't be so eager to plead conspiracy when your view is opposed, that's what fascists do

Jeez, look at the footage of these "protesters" kicking the crap out of Trump voters. No, Federberg - democracy was Trump winning the vote. What these anarchists are doing is just plain violence. Kicking the shit out of people with a different view after you lost a vote isn't democracy. That's actually the stupidest thing you've said on this thread, sorry.

I'm guessing your "walking in another man's shoes" comment is an assumption that I have never faced any sort of discrimination. Don't be so quick to make assumptions Federberg.

Again.. I wish you'd shown similar outrage at the assaults on anti-Trump protesters at his rally. I even recall one protester getting punched to the ground, and Trump saying he would contribute to the attackers defence. It's precisely things like that, that are so concerning to me. Trump might want to back away from that sort of mob rule, but we'll have to see if he can control the monster he's unleashed. Can you post a link of these protesters beating up people with a differing view? I haven't heard or seen this. I've seen the protesters being tear gassed though..

This stuff can't be perpetually kicked down the road... it's going to get worse and worse. There will be a global financial crash like no other at some point - it's probably too late already. 2008 will look like a friendly picnic in comparison. At least Trump has acknowledged it and discussed the issue... which HAS to involve a sea-change. Whether he can make any headway is an entirely different matter... whether he is the right man for that job (other stuff aside) remains to be seen... but there are a lot of things on the table that are more important than political correctness IMO. IF (and it's a big IF) Trump rebuilds the infrastructure of the US, goes someway to addressing the national debt, puts the conditions in place to bring jobs back the US then that outweights stupid rhetoric from his electioneering.

I agree, there is a serious risk that things get worse and worse. Actually the US is the one shining light at the moment. As I've mentioned before, if you look throughout history, recoveries from financial crises are always slow and painful. This time is no different. If I have one fear regarding what Trump has said he'll do, it's on global trade. The one fundamental difference between now and the Great Depression was that then, countries put tariffs up and that was what led to disaster. I pray he doesn't precipitate the same, because if that happens everything goes down the pooper...

I think he will... but I've always said some sort of protectionsim will be neccessary. Free trade can be as damaging as it can be good. maybe not for traders like yourself... but the social contract with the big corps and the population has been broken. You still have to look after the little people.[/QUOTE]

Again.. I think I've expounded my views on this issue quite a few times. Global trade is not the problem. The problem is that corporations have been allowed to get away with tax and labour arbitrage. Governments have to implement policies that protect people from the worst excesses that corporations try to get away with. You can't stop global trade now without massive problems. What you can do is, implement policies that make it work better for all

 

[Tennis Fan]

So much depends on where one gets their news, and not just during a political campaign. So much of what I see comes from the biased faux news that always lies and starts these "liberal" rants. It's so stupid it's laughable. It's the usual, "the media is biased for (the left candidate)" rhetoric, when in reality the crap that goes on, on the right is barely covered. Half of America has no idea about the candidates that it supports. I try to deal in facts, not someone else's regurgitated opinion. I find that offensive. That's why I watch the hearings and the votes and the Right will vote one way and then flat out lie to the public about which way they voted and so many people don't even take the time to check their voting records. If they did they'd see that they're voting against their own interests. Instead, they use the "It's us against them" dung and don't even realize that as far as political interests are concerned, the uneducated voters are the "them" too; they just don't know it. People making minimum wage are voting for people who are giving huge tax breaks and incentives to big business and keeping their foot on their necks and they're too stupid to see that. They keep saying that companies will lose money, when the reverse has been proven true time and time again. Big money wins, not the little people. It's beyond sad how uneducated some people are, but how can one be educated when they simply believe what they're told on the tube via slanted media?

I read and watch what both sides are saying and doing and then test it against the facts. That's why it's so easy to pinpoint where people get their "opinion" from.

I was standing in line in the last election and this woman and her son were standing near me. We struck up a conversation and she started telling me all of this foolishness that I knew to be flat out lies. At first I just listened to her POV, because I already considered her uninformed. She went on and on and on, becoming insistent in her defense of her POV which I wasn't even arguing against it. WTH do I care what her beliefs are? Each of us has one vote. This lady began to get overly pushy. She wanted me to agree with her. I just listened and said nothing, because it's no fun arguing with an idiot; it's tedious and boring. Funny at first, but a waste of time in the end. I wanted to get in to vote and away from this woman, but, she continued to rant in my ear. Finally, I turned to her and said, "Don't tell me, you watch Fox News, listen to Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, et all." Her son's eyes flew open in shock. He turned to his mom and said, "How did she know?" She started blubbering all over herself and her tone changed just like that. There was cold, hard anger in her eyes and suddenly she didn't want to talk to me anymore. People like that aren't making decisions based on policy, they have a totally different agenda.

Trump didn't tell the people one darn thing that he was going to do. So WTH were they voting for? His reputation was soiled long before he ran for office.

If we are to believe Trump, before he ran he sang the praises of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I posted a video on what he said two years ago. So this sudden reversal is just as fake as his entire campaign. The man speaks out of both sides of his mouth, on every issue. Does anyone read the fact checkers? Trump lied through his teeth the entire time. But people like that don't check the facts.

 

[Federberg]

So much depends on where one gets their news, and not just during a political campaign. So much of what I see comes from the biased faux news that always lies and starts these "liberal" rants. It's so stupid it's laughable. It's the usual, "the media is biased for (the left candidate)" rhetoric, when in reality the crap that goes on, on the right is barely covered. Half of America has no idea about the candidates that it supports. I try to deal in facts, not someone else's regurgitated opinion. I find that offensive. That's why I watch the hearings and the votes and the Right will vote one way and then flat out lie to the public about which way they voted and so many people don't even take the time to check their voting records. If they did they'd see that they're voting against their own interests. Instead, they use the "It's us against them" dung and don't even realize that as far as political interests are concerned, the uneducated voters are the "them" too; they just don't know it. People making minimum wage are voting for people who are giving huge tax breaks and incentives to big business and keeping their foot on their necks and they're too stupid to see that. They keep saying that companies will lose money, when the reverse has been proven true time and time again. Big money wins, not the little people. It's beyond sad how uneducated some people are, but how can one be educated when they simply believe what they're told on the tube via slanted media?

I read and watch what both sides are saying and doing and then test it against the facts. That's why it's so easy to pinpoint where people get their "opinion" from.

I was standing in line in the last election and this woman and her son were standing near me. We struck up a conversation and she started telling me all of this foolishness that I knew to be flat out lies. At first I just listened to her POV, because I already considered her uninformed. She went on and on and on, becoming insistent in her defense of her POV which I wasn't even arguing against it. WTH do I care what her beliefs are? Each of us has one vote. This lady began to get overly pushy. She wanted me to agree with her. I just listened and said nothing, because it's no fun arguing with an idiot; it's tedious and boring. Funny at first, but a waste of time in the end. I wanted to get in to vote and away from this woman, but, she continued to rant in my ear. Finally, I turned to her and said, "Don't tell me, you watch Fox News, listen to Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, et all." Her son's eyes flew open in shock. He turned to his mom and said, "How did she know?" She started blubbering all over herself and her tone changed just like that. There was cold, hard anger in her eyes and suddenly she didn't want to talk to me anymore. People like that aren't making decisions based on policy, they have a totally different agenda.

Trump didn't tell the people one darn thing that he was going to do. So WTH were they voting for? His reputation was soiled long before he ran for office.

If we are to believe Trump, before he ran he sang the praises of Bill and Hillary Clinton. I posted a video on what he said two years ago. So this sudden reversal is just as fake as his entire campaign. The man speaks out of both sides of his mouth, on every issue. Does anyone read the fact checkers? Trump lied through his teeth the entire time. But people like that don't check the facts.

I have to agree. I tend to meet more Americans with a republican bias than not, and the politicians I've met were consistent in telling me how impressive Hillary has been in office. But these same people will publicly accuse her of corruption. The duplicity is stunning. The GOP have perpetrated a campaign of blatant character assassination and it worked. The next 4 years are going to be so interesting. They have no where to hide now, lets see if karma destroys them

 

[Billie]

 

[Billie]

 

[Tennis Fan]

I have to agree. I tend to meet more Americans with a republican bias than not, and the politicians I've met were consistent in telling me how impressive Hillary has been in office. But these same people will publicly accuse her of corruption. The duplicity is stunning. The GOP have perpetrated a campaign of blatant character assassination and it worked. The next 4 years are going to be so interesting. They have no where to hide now, lets see if karma destroys them

That's exactly it. They don't have any policies that they'll tell you about. All they do is character assassinate the opponent. Just like Trump did. Name one thing he said that he was going to do? You can't. His response to that was, "I'm not going to say and show the other guy my hand." And these people actually bought that. The fact checkers went into why the few "policies" he uttered weren't feasible, but hey, if you're listening to that rhetoric your mind is closed to logic.

All they did was character assassinate Hillary, and gave a free pass to an idiot that wants to grab women by the $%$!, admits he hasn't respected women, won't show his tax returns, hasn't paid taxes for sixteen years, has a bogus charity, bought his diploma, started a fake birther movement, promised to pay money for anyone who could get the birth certificate, reneged on that...

There's no need to continue. He's an idiot. America has embarrassed themselves globally based on their own biased attitudes.

 

[Federberg]

^I agree. But what this shows is how big a mistake it was to have HRC represent the Dems. I have a feeling both Biden and Bernie would have comfortably beat Trump. They would have held the rust belt more effectively.

 

[teddytennisfan]

a point to make:
RIGHT to the day of elections HILLARY -- and her campaign planted in the minds of americans
SINCE the day she DRAGGED THE NOTION OUT in her speeches, debate, ''talkiing points" --

tht ''RUSSIA IS TO BLAME" -- ''russia and putin are cooking something up to get trump elected" ...russia, russia, russia,

NYtimes, and the cabal of american news joine din of course -- russia, russia, russia -- on the way to ''we'll teach russia a lesson and china too and iran too"

HILLARY SAID THAT - so don't try to run away from the CENTER PIECE of her campaign...

and the day after -- it suddenly somehow DISAPPEARED..

IT IS NOW ''who's to blame"./.

let's see now -- some of them are holdovers from BEFORE election but that's not the point ...

it's this:

'the FBI is to blame for telling everyone about HILLARY..."
''WIKILEAKS has got to be the blame for digging and exposing hillary
''it has to be those DEPLORABLE voters for trump ''
''it's got to be that ELECTORAL SYSTEM" ((the new favorite of hillary's followers..but dear hillary voters -- this IS what YOUR american democracy's rules ARE -- YOU SHOULD HAVE COMPLAINED ahead of time IF YOU DIDN'T LIKE THESE results AFTERWARDS -- after all there WAS precedent you should have learend about on GORE/BUSH ) ...

maybe hillary and groupies (all of YOU puppets of the REAL POWERS that be like the rothschilds, rockefelles, soros, pentagon, cia, THEIR MEDIA that you call ''news and reputably and dependable sources" -- etc...except they seem to have MISCALCULATED at this moment)



so -- how about just some HUMBLE PIE in your faces at YOUR OWN ARROGANCE represented by HILLARY rather than whining and finding BLAME ELSEWHERE ?

mind you -- i DO find trump quite deplorable really...and with all that power OBAMA left donald to wield -- there's no telling how donald is gonna use or abuse that too..but

it is just that hillary -- oh well --it's beyond words...she was SURELY not just gonna use all that but MORE!! RIGHT UP to dragging this world into a NUCLEAR ZONE...and wipe out the very cities where the majuority of hillary's ''voters" actually LIVE! ON the coastlines....if she EVER had gotten her way to GET INTO A REAL war with russia/and/or china as she was HUNGRY to do

just to show she's got the biggest BULL balls around!

 

[britbox]

A LETTER TO THE USA

FROM JOHN CLEESE

To the citizens of the United States of America, in light of your failure to elect a competent President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective today.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II resumes monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other territories. Except Utah, which she does not fancy.

Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Theresa May, MP for the 97.8% of you who have, until now, been unaware there's a world outside your borders) will appoint a minister for America. Congress and the Senate are disbanded. A questionnaire circulated next year will determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid your transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. Look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Check "aluminium" in the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you pronounce it. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour'. Likewise you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters. Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. Look up "vocabulary." Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed." There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you should not have chat shows.

2. There is no such thing as "US English." We'll let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u'.

3. You should learn to distinguish English and Australian accents. It really isn't that hard. English accents are not limited to cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier). Scottish dramas such as 'Taggart' will no longer be broadcast with subtitles.You must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon." If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire Floridashire, Louisianashire.

4. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1.

5. You should stop playing American "football." There's only one kind of football. What you call American "football" is not a very good game. The 2.1% of you aware there is a world outside your borders may have noticed no one else plays "American" football. You should instead play proper football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every two seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies) You should stop playing baseball. It's not reasonable to host event called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of America. Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders," which is baseball without fancy team stripe, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

6. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns, or anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because you are not sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you need a permit to carry a vegetable peeler.

7. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new national holiday. It will be called "Indecisive Day."

8. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean. All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left. At the same time, you will go metric without the benefit of conversion tables. Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

9. Learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips. Fries aren't French, they're Belgian though 97.8% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium. Potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat.

10. The cold tasteless stuff you call beer is actually lager. Only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer." Substances once known as "American Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine," except for the product of the American Budweiser company which will be called "Weak Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine." This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

11. The UK will harmonise petrol prices (or "Gasoline," as you will be permitted to keep calling it) for those of the former USA, adopting UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon, get used to it).

12. Learn to resolve personal issues without guns, lawyers or therapists. That you need many lawyers and therapists shows you're not adult enough to be independent. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

13. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

14. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Thank you for your co-operation.

 

[Ricardo]

You are aptly named . LOL!

people of your kind are truly sad, keep playing the gender card and race card too and see where that leads you. Already that's already enough of costing you an election, but you'll never learn. Guess what, you are only existing because men protect the likes of you, feminists are worthless whiners can't do nothing......they just talk.

Be grateful.