Donald John Trump: 2016 President-Elect

[dcalley]

58 minutes ago, madmaverick said:

I had no idea he had a brother who got disinherited?  What happened to him?

Here's an article on the brother and Trump harming an innocent child out of spite:

Quote

Freddy’s son, Fred III, spoke at the funeral, and that night, his wife went into labor with their son, who developed seizures that led to cerebral palsy. The Trump family promised that it would take care of the medical bills.

Then came the unveiling of Fred Sr.’s will, which Donald had helped draft. It divided the bulk of the inheritance, at least $20 million, among his children and their descendants, “other than my son Fred C. Trump Jr.”

Freddy’s children sued, claiming that an earlier version of the will had entitled them to their father’s share of the estate, but that Donald and his siblings had used “undue influence” over their grandfather, who had dementia, to cut them out.

A week later, Mr. Trump retaliated by withdrawing the medical benefits critical to his nephew’s infant child.

“I was angry because they sued,” he explained during last week’s interview.

Another article:

Quote

Trump, for his part, was unapologetic about his actions. “Why should we give him medical coverage?” he told Evans. When she asked him if he thought he might come across as cold-hearted, given the baby’s medical condition, he said, “I can’t help that. It’s cold when someone sues my father. Had he come to see me, things could very possibly have been much different for them.”

[PatsyandEddie]

He has no soul. 

[Kromm]

59 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

Update from MSNBC re: Lawsuit in NV

It was just reported that they allowed people to get into the lines after the polls closed. And remained open for those voters. Those are the votes in dispute. Sounds like the judge has little patience with the Trumps.

Was that an on-air update? Because the story on the MSNBC website doesn't mention anything past that judge shooting down Trump's lawsuit.

[formerlyfreedom]

Live chat topic goes live at 6:45 pm ET / 5:45 pm CT.

[needschocolate]

1 hour ago, NinjaPenguins said:

There are supporters who believe "Make America Great Again" is a concrete plan. I'm related to one, in fact.

I suggest you help out a soup kitchen on Thanksgiving, or take a trip, or just have a small dinner with the non-looney family members.

[NewDigs]

1 hour ago, Kromm said:

Was that an on-air update? Because the story on the MSNBC website doesn't mention anything past that judge shooting down Trump's lawsuit.

It was live. Only had time for a quick look and found no substantiation. 

Sorry. I was listening and missed a name but it was not a surrogate.

[Danny Franks]

Just wait for the big, urban counties to come in in Florida and Virginia. It's all the rural, heavy Republican areas so far.

[AliShibaz]

So far, it appears that Trump is going to win. Despite being one of the most contemptible people on the face of this Earth, I just can't help but think that Bitchary would be a whole Hell of a lot worse.

[Brattinella]

Oh my!  HE WON!   *cartwheels*

[AliShibaz]

Every time I see the name, "Donald J. Trump", I just can't help but think the "J" must stand for "Joke". Holy Shit!

And every time I see the name "Hilary", I can't help but think that "Hilarity" or "Bitchary" would be a better choice for her name.

I hate them both. Lord have mercy!

Edited November 9, 2016 by AliShibaz

[derriere]

Yikes. This is what happens in a world where people don't actively seek out opposing views and try to empathise with them anymore. We don't get the opportunity to change minds when we're snuggled up safe in our echo chambers sneering dismissively at "the other side".

President Trump... good grief.

[ClareWalks]

Someone, just...PLEASE tell me it won't be as bad as I think it will be. Someone reassure me a little bit. I feel numb right now.

[Marathonrunner]

Perhaps Melania's anti-bullying campaign will turn her husband into an insightful, respectful human being who really will make a positive impact on our future (and there's a bridge in Brooklyn for sale if you believe that)

I just can't put my head around him winning (refuse to even type or say his name)

[Danny Franks]

Well....

You know, I honestly thought my country would be the stupidest country in 2016, with Brexit. But you Americans had to go and challenge for the title, didn't you? And as usual, you outdo everyone else. Could not believe my eyes, and genuinely felt sick to my stomach, as it all unfolded last night. I got perhaps an hour of sleep.

But the funny thing is, Trump's victory speech was so moderate and... normal. He praised Hillary, said the country owed her a huge amount. He didn't mention his wall or deporting people or banning Muslims. He talked about a massive infrastructure project to invest in America. So who is he fooling? Us now, or his supporters then? Or, as is more likely, both? That infrastructure idea will never make it past the Republicans in Congress, and will soon set him against them, if he's actually intent on pushing it.

Either way, the Democrats now need to reform and reunite under a progressive left banner. Neoliberalism is done, and it's clear that many millions of Americans didn't want someone who will offer gradual improvement and the political status quo. So Sanders and Warren and the other progressives need to place themselves front and centre, as figureheads. But a quote from Adam Curtis's recent documentary, Hyper-Normalisation, is stuck in my head, and won't leave me alone. Talking about the 70s in the US, when the banks began to take over he said, "the left retreated... watching the decay with a cool detachment. They didn't try to change it, just to experience it".

[Chaos Theory]

11 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

Well....

You know, I honestly thought my country would be the stupidest country in 2016, with Brexit. But you Americans had to go and challenge for the title, didn't you? And as usual, you outdo everyone else. Could not believe my eyes, and genuinely felt sick to my stomach, as it all unfolded last night. I got perhaps an hour of sleep.

But the funny thing is, Trump's victory speech was so moderate and... normal. He praised Hillary, said the country owed her a huge amount. He didn't mention his wall or deporting people or banning Muslims. He talked about a massive infrastructure project to invest in America. So who is he fooling? Us now, or his supporters then? Or, as is more likely, both? That infrastructure idea will never make it past the Republicans in Congress, and will soon set him against them, if he's actually intent on pushing it.

Either way, the Democrats now need to reform and reunite under a progressive left banner. Neoliberalism is done, and it's clear that many millions of Americans didn't want someone who will offer gradual improvement and the political status quo. So Sanders and Warren and the other progressives need to place themselves front and centre, as figureheads. But a quote from Adam Curtis's recent documentary, Hyper-Normalisation, is stuck in my head, and won't leave me alone. Talking about the 70s in the US, when the banks began to take over he said, "the left retreated... watching the decay with a cool detachment. They didn't try to change it, just to experience it".

We're number one!   We win everything.  

Seriously though.  I have no idea how Trump won.  Well I kinda do.  Trump tapped into white blue collar anger masterfully.  

Three steps forward.  Two steps back I guess. I tend to be a social liberal but more conservative when it comes to financial matters so I hope Trump am his misogyny, racism, homophobia doesn't do too much damage over the next four years,

So it begins.

[Ohwell]

I deliberately avoided all election coverage last night, just watched bad movies, woke up this morning and it was eerily quiet.  My spidey sense told me that something was "off" so I turned on tv and found out Trump had won.  Then after the shock wore off, I realized that I wasn't that surprised.   

First of all, Dems had a bad candidate who couldn't generate much enthusiasm, except maybe among white women over 35.  Email crap didn't help.  

Second, calling Trump and his supporters every bad name in the book, forgetting what Michelle Obama said about when they (meaning Trump) go low, we go high (or words to that effect).  No surprise that there would be a lot of pissed off people who couldn't wait to get to the polls to vote for Trump, because they were sick and tired of being called ignorant, racists, misogynists, bigots--you name it.  Frankly, I never bought into the name-calling of his supporters.

Oh well, I voted for her and at least Virginia went blue.

[NinjaPenguins]

If people don't want to be called bigots, racists, homophobes, and misogynists, there is a very simple solution. Stop acting like one. Yes, this is America, where citizens are free to spew all the ignorance and hatred they want. However, those who disagree with them have every right to respond. So many bigots want to use racial slurs or sexist language and have no one call them on it. Tough shit. Unfortunately, whatever Agent Orange does  won't just fall on the heads of those who voted for his citrus behind. 

In four years, we'll experience the Dubya Phenomenon, in which millions of Americans will conveniently forget they cast their ballots for a KKK endorsed buffoon. You will find it difficult to locate anyone who admits to voting for him. People with really egregious Republican governors have also witnessed the DP. It's quite an amazing phenomenon.

[Ohwell]

Yeah, see how far the name-calling got you.

[Danny Franks]

3 minutes ago, NinjaPenguins said:

If people don't want to be called bigots, racists, homophobes, and misogynists, there is a very simple solution. Stop acting like one. Yes, this is America, where citizens are free to spew all the ignorance and hatred they want. However, those who disagree with them have every right to respond. So many bigots want to use racial slurs or sexist language and have no one call them on it. Tough shit. Unfortunately, whatever Agent Orange does  won't just fall on the heads of those who voted for his citrus behind. 

 

Preach it. I get so fucking tired of being told not to point out that people are being revolting bigots, because it hurts their poor little feelings. After all, they're usually the ones demanding that political correctness be done away with so people can say whatever they want. If they want their opinions to be seen as valid and rational, then they should try explaining them instead of going to rallies and shouting about how Mexicans should get the hell out.

But it's a vicious circle, because calling them out on their shit just makes them even more determined to be offended, which makes them double down on their views, which makes liberals want to call them out even more.

We had it over here, with Brexit, where we keep being told that all the 'elitists' who look down on those with uncharitable views about foreigners are the problem, and the bigots are the ones we should now be listening to. Because they're the ones with the 'real' experiences and the ones who have lost out. I'm sorry, but that's a crass generalisation, to suggest that they're the only ones who have suffered, and to suggest that all people who have suffered have resorted to hatred and anger.

It's true that the establishment, whatever side of the political spectrum they are on, and whatever country they are in, has lost sight of what is best for a lot of their citizens, but tearing the whole thing down with ignorance and bile is not the way to fix anything. And besides, all the Americans did was elect an oaf as president. They still put all the other useless, elitist congressmen and senators back into office. So just what is it they want? Real change or just a chance to vent their anger?

[NewDigs]

Got Donald Trump pretty far. imho

[qtpye]

33 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

I deliberately avoided all election coverage last night, just watched bad movies, woke up this morning and it was eerily quiet.  My spidey sense told me that something was "off" so I turned on tv and found out Trump had won.  Then after the shock wore off, I realized that I wasn't that surprised.   

First of all, Dems had a bad candidate who couldn't generate much enthusiasm, except maybe among white women over 35.  Email crap didn't help.  

Second, calling Trump and his supporters every bad name in the book, forgetting what Michelle Obama said about when they (meaning Trump) go low, we go high (or words to that effect).  No surprise that there would be a lot of pissed off people who couldn't wait to get to the polls to vote for Trump, because they were sick and tired of being called ignorant, racists, misogynists, bigots--you name it.  Frankly, I never bought into the name-calling of his supporters.

Oh well, I voted for her and at least Virginia went blue.

I know a lot of people on this thread are confused to why this happened.  Below is a an article from Jim Newell from Slate Magazine, which is a left leaning magazine.  I honestly believe that at the end of the day, it begins and ends with the candidate.  When a person so naturally qualified for the job is beaten by an orange clown, we have to step back and look at mistakes honestly so it does not happen again.  I think this article is worth a read.

 

The Democrats will now control next to nothing above the municipal level. Donald Trump will be president. We are going to be unpacking this night for the rest of our lives, and lives beyond that. We can’t comprehend even 1 percent of what’s just happened. But one aspect of it, minor in the overall sweep, that I’m pretty sure we can comprehend well enough right now: The Democratic Party establishment has be clowned itself and is finished.

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.

We should blame all those people around the Clintons more than the Clintons themselves, and the Clintons themselves deserve a ridiculous amount of blame. Hillary Clinton was just an ambitious person who wanted to be president. There are a lot of people like that. But she was enabled. The Democratic establishment is a club unwelcoming to outsiders, because outsiders don’t first look out for the club. The Clintons will be gone now. For the sake of the country, let them take the hangers-on with them.

What was the line? Hillary Clinton would do well in a general election, because she’d been “vetted” for 20-some years and there was nothing new Republicans could try? Just writing that, I recognize that it’s the funniest line I’ve ever seen, and yet it was the exact argument Clinton used in two separate campaigns for the Democratic nomination.

The ace ground game, the brilliant ad-makers, the top Hollywood talent, and the best analytics operation ever assembled? This was all a joke. The best analytics team in the world, apparently, couldn’t find in their numbers that it was worth making a single stop to Wisconsin following the convention in a campaign against a Republican whose base appeal was in the Rust Belt. Not that an extra visit would have changed the result.

Think of how wrong the entire national media conversation was—and yes, I contributed my fair share—about how the Republicans were being torn apart as a party. I prewrote a piece Tuesday afternoon, to be published in the event of the expected Clinton win, pushing back against both myself and other members of the media, arguing that Democrats and Republicans were both in existential trouble and that, in the short-term context of a decaying political system, Republicans might even have the edge: Democrats could win the presidency most of the time but never a majority of state governments or the House; while Republicans could always win the majority of state governments and the House, and occasionally—probably in 2020, I thought—the White House. This was wrong. Republicans don’t have a slight edge over Democrats in a decaying political system. Republicans are ascendant. Trump has given them a mission. The country is now theirs.

Whoever takes over what’s left of the Democratic Party is going to have to find a way to appeal to a broader cross section of the country. It may still be true that in the long term, Republicans can’t win with their demographics, but we found out Tuesday that the long term is still pretty far away. Democrats have to win more white voters. They have to do so in a way that doesn’t erode the anti-racist or anti-sexist planks of the modern party, which are non-negotiable. If only there were a model for this.

The few Democratic leaders who remain are going to say that it was just a bad note struck here or there, or the lazy Bernie voters who didn’t show up, or Jim Comey, or unfair media coverage of Clinton’s emails, to blame for this loss. I am already seeing Democrats blaming the Electoral College, which until a few hours ago was hailed as the great protector of Democratic virtue for decades to come, and Republicans were silly for not understanding how to crack the blue “wall.” They will say, just wait for Republicans to overreach. Then we’ll be fine.

Don’t listen to any of this. Everything is not OK. This is not OK.

2

[Chicken Wing]

7 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

Yeah, see how far the name-calling got you.

 

4 minutes ago, NewDigs said:

Got Donald Trump pretty far. imho

Seriously, Newdigs, I'm like, "Um...hello?"

[NinjaPenguins]

Well, I suppose we could pretend that being a racist or misogynist is dandy fine to placate those voters. Then they'll feel good about themselves and their poisonous belief systems, continue to act deplorable, and vote the same way they always do. 

Don't get me wrong. In many ways, both parties failed these people economically. Black people, immigrants, women in control of their own bodies and gay people getting married are not to blame, yet they will now bear the brunt of all that misplaced anger. 

[backgroundnoise]

On 11/7/2016 at 2:38 PM, BW Manilowe said:

 

I can't get the quote box to go away.

Anyway, I won't rest easier until the first test of how Trump will handle his supporters' real or threatened violence against those who criticize him.  

[Danny Franks]

11 minutes ago, qtpye said:

The few Democratic leaders who remain are going to say that it was just a bad note struck here or there, or the lazy Bernie voters who didn’t show up, or Jim Comey, or unfair media coverage of Clinton’s emails, to blame for this loss. I am already seeing Democrats blaming the Electoral College, which until a few hours ago was hailed as the great protector of Democratic virtue for decades to come, and Republicans were silly for not understanding how to crack the blue “wall.” They will say, just wait for Republicans to overreach. Then we’ll be fine.

Don’t listen to any of this. Everything is not OK. This is not OK.

 

That's the risk. That the Democrats will find convenient excuses for how this happened, that do not require them to look at themselves very harshly at all.

It's been a feature of British politics for a while now that the Left has failed to respond to the changing world, to new forms of labour markets and new voting demographics. They appeal more to intellectuals than to working class people, by and large, because they offer a more studied, logical response, rather than the emotional crutch that right wing politics offer.

It's easier to make people afraid than it is to make them understand. Jeremy Corbyn's Labour party seems to be paralysed because they simply do not know how to deal with this problem. I fear the Democrats will follow the same path.

[MulletorHater]

20 minutes ago, NinjaPenguins said:

If people don't want to be called bigots, racists, homophobes, and misogynists, there is a very simple solution. Stop acting like one. Yes, this is America, where citizens are free to spew all the ignorance and hatred they want. However, those who disagree with them have every right to respond. So many bigots want to use racial slurs or sexist language and have no one call them on it. Tough shit. Unfortunately, whatever Agent Orange does  won't just fall on the heads of those who voted for his citrus behind. 

In four years, we'll experience the Dubya Phenomenon, in which millions of Americans will conveniently forget they cast their ballots for a KKK endorsed buffoon. You will find it difficult to locate anyone who admits to voting for him. People with really egregious Republican governors have also witnessed the DP. It's quite an amazing phenomenon.

Thank you so much for pointing this out.  I'm tired of pussyfooting around this subject.  Let's call a thing a thing and tell the TRUTH just once--please.  

And, no, I have absolutely desire to "join hands in unity" or some other such shit that's being spouted this morning with people who I know are racists, sexists, xenophobes and so woefully ignorant that they knowingly put someone in office who isn't qualified and don't care.  It is sobering to know that there are friends and acquaintances among us who look us in our faces everyday and smile, work closely with us, go to lunch with us and may even socialize with us in our homes.  Yet, they supported a man who denigrated Mexicans, Blacks, Muslims, Jews and women.  It is sobering to know that he allowed someone like Bannon to run his campaign and that the "alt-right" has now taken its message mainstream.

So, you'll have to forgive me this morning if I'm feeling a certain way.  He can take his "let's unite as a people" speech and shove it up his ass.

[backgroundnoise]

At least with only 278 EC votes and her likely win of the popular vote, there is no mandate.  That's all that's keeping me sane right now.

[NinjaPenguins]

Dubya won with a 5-4 Supreme Court vote  and launched a war of aggression against Iraq. Mandates schmandates. These fuckers act like the majority even when they're in the minority.

[Danny Franks]

Trump has a fully Republican Congress. He can do whatever he likes, as long as they agree with him.

But, bizarrely, the main policy announcement in his victory speech, that of spending an unprecedented amount of money on infrastructure, will be hated by most Republican politicians. I mean, that's Keynesian economics, something that the likes of Paul Ryan find anathema to their beliefs. They'll never let him do it.

[ari333]

My bf and I are Dems. The rest of my immediate family are Republicans to the point of... if a chimp were nominated they'd vote for it as long as it's Republican.

I wondered something.  We finally had a black president. I wonder if people thought that now maybe we could have a female president. The thing is, Hillary did have baggage that some people just cant get past for whatever reason. This to me, is part of what  put Agent Orange in the White House.

I have never felt so sick after an election. The holidays are going to be horrible.

Maybe I'm grasping at straws to try to understand

[PatsyandEddie]

The Trump ride will be a doozy alright,straight to hell without the hand basket. 

[ari333]

48 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

Thank you so much for pointing this out.  I'm tired of pussyfooting around this subject.  Let's call a thing a thing and tell the TRUTH just once--please.  

And, no, I have absolutely desire to "join hands in unity" or some other such shit that's being spouted this morning with people who I know are racists, sexists, xenophobes and so woefully ignorant that they knowingly put someone in office who isn't qualified and don't care.  It is sobering to know that there are friends and acquaintances among us who look us in our faces everyday and smile, work closely with us, go to lunch with us and may even socialize with us in our homes.  Yet, they supported a man who denigrated Mexicans, Blacks, Muslims, Jews and women.  It is sobering to know that he allowed someone like Bannon to run his campaign and that the "alt-right" has now taken its message mainstream.

So, you'll have to forgive me this morning if I'm feeling a certain way.  He can take his "let's unite as a people" speech and shove it up his ass.

And may I add, "and twirl."

BBM (Bold By Me)

PREACH! YES. And he means "let's unite as..... rich, white males. Everyone else can go fuck themselves."

I'm trying to absorb the shock and sadness.

We're screwed.

[MulletorHater]

3 minutes ago, ari333 said:

My bf and I are Dems. The rest of my immediate family are Republicans to the point of... if a chimp were nominated they'd vote for it as long as it's Republican.

I wondered something.  We finally had a black president. I wonder if people thought that now maybe we could have a female president. The thing is, Hillary did have baggage that some people just cant get past for whatever reason. This to me, is part of what  put Agent Orange in the White House.

I have never felt so sick after an election. The holidays are going to be horrible.

Maybe I'm grasping at straws to try to understand

My husband (a Republican who voted for President Obama twice) allowed me to talk through this early this morning.  I firmly believe that some of this was a backlash against us having a Black president.  My husband indicated that there was no way people were ready for a female president after that.  Plus, he went in on Hillary's faults and believed that she was not the best candidate.  But, I have to wonder would it have been any female candidate or was it this particular one.  I always knew that the Clinton hate was real but was stunned to see the level of it, especially toward Hillary.  I can't forget the tee shirts or the rallies where people not only called for her to be jailed, but advocating her assassination should she win.  

And, yes, the DNC needs to clean house and bring in some new blood.  I have no idea how there were so few potential DNC candidates who were unwilling to run for the nomination.  

[ari333]

1 minute ago, PatsyandEddie said:

The Trump ride will be a doozy alright,straight to hell without the hand basket. 

No handbasket, no cart.... we're screwed. The other scary part to me is that rump is too stupid to run the country. Pence will be doing it andthat is horrifying.

[Dresdengirl]

18 hours ago, onthebrink03 said:

^^^^^^^

And they get pissy for being called "deplorables".  If the shoe fits assholes...

Took the words right out of my mouth.

[ari333]

Does anyone know how many times in our history (if any, IDK) that a Dem won after two previous terms of a Dem president? I ask bc I wonder if that worked in Orange's favor as well . Iow, I wondered if the thinking may have been,  " 8 years of a Dem, time for a Republican no matter how loathsome he is." kind of thing. 

I was trying to think back. Sometimes the vice president runs after a two term president and sometimes wins? Oh ,I cant think straight. But you get my drift.  

I'm still trying to understand. Is the hate that widespread? or are R people just stuck on their party no matter what?

Pass the Pepto

[ClareWalks]

50 minutes ago, stewedsquash said:

I am ready for the Trump ride. It's going to be a doozy.

My problem with the Trump ride is, usually if you go to an amusement park you take solace in knowing that the big scary looping rollercoaster is safe because it's gone through rigorous checks and they wouldn't have opened the thing to the public if it were dangerous. Trump is like the slapdash coaster at the county fair that was thrown together by carnies and there's a 50/50 shot it'll throw you like a cannonball into a parking lot. "Doozy," that's putting it mildly.

[Pollock]

10 minutes ago, ari333 said:

Does anyone know how many times in our history (if any, IDK) that a Dem won after two previous terms of a Dem president?

If it can help you, here's a list of all your presidents with their party since Adams : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin  
(Edit to add: you can put that list in chronological order by clicking on "year" at the top of it).

I was just browsing through this because Hillary is winning the popular vote, http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region so I wanted to see how many times the winner of the majority of the votes didn't win the presidency. Two times in recent history, two times democrats.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Pollock

[Dresdengirl]

20 hours ago, BW Manilowe said:

Eric Trump Tweeted, then deleted, a photo of his completed ballot. Sharing your completed ballot with anyone, including on Social Media, is illegal in New York (at least City, if not State).

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/eric-trump-tweeted-deleted-photo-completed-election-ballot-945347?utm_source=twitter

The Law does not apply to the Trumps.

[Danny Franks]

21 minutes ago, MulletorHater said:

 And, yes, the DNC needs to clean house and bring in some new blood.  I have no idea how there were so few potential DNC candidates who were unwilling to run for the nomination.  

It's because they all felt it was Hillary's turn. It's no coincidence that Sanders, a longtime independent, was the only one willing to go all guns blazing.

The Democratic party seemed to feel that Hillary was owed this one, after losing to Obama in 2008, so no one of consequence stood in the primaries. If not for Clinton, I think Elizabeth Warren might have stood, and maybe Andrew Cuomo as well. They'll both surely stand in 2020. There will be other candidates too, like Corey Booker. And hey, why not Kanye West? He's said he wants to do it, and he can't be any worse than Trump. Him freestyle rapping his way through debates would be entertaining, if nothing else.

Anyway, this is where the DNC has been absolutely open to all the criticism they've had. They set it up for Clinton, and even with her winning the popular vote in the primaries, people could see that the DNC was going to ensure she was the nominee. It gave Trump a huge weapon to wield against them. Wassermann-Schultz and Brazile are seen as poster women for the establishment corruption he's railed against.

[ari333]

23 minutes ago, Pollock said:

If it can help you, here's a list of all your presidents with their party since Adams : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin  
(Edit to add: you can put that list in chronological order by clicking on "year" at the top of it).

I was just browsing through this because Hillary is winning the popular vote, http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=span-abc-region&region=span-abc-region&WT.nav=span-abc-region so I wanted to see how many times the winner of the majority of the votes didn't win the presidency. Two times in recent history, two times democrats.

All the more reason to get rid of the electoral college.

[Jordan27]

If you get rid of the EC, you change the election.  It would not have insured Hillary the election because the candidates would have run a different campaign.  More campaigning in big states, some in medium and small states would always be ignored. 

[Jordan27]

Congratulations to President-Elect Donald J. Trump.  A convincing win by someone who weathered more hate from liberals, Dems and a leftist biased media than anyone in history.

Time to make America great again and get rid of liberal influence.

Oh, how sweet it is.

[ari333]

5 minutes ago, Jordan27 said:

If you get rid of the EC, you change the election.  It would not have insured Hillary the election because the candidates would have run a different campaign.  More campaigning in big states, some in medium and small states would always be ignored. 

Small states would still be cognizant of the candidates and issues (internet, tv, communication) whether  people campaigned there or not. .

I'm ok with that.

The popular vote means nothing bc clearly it doesn't matter who actually gets the most votes.  The EC needs to go imo. It's outdated. We're not all riding horse and buggies with no means of communication across long distances. quite the opposite.

HOW DO WE DO IT?  HOW DO WE START?

1 minute ago, Jordan27 said:

Congratulations to President-Elect Donald J. Trump.  A convincing win by someone who weathered more hate from liberals, Dems and a leftist biased media than anyone in history.

Time to make America great again and get rid of liberal influence.

Oh, how sweet it is.

America never stopped being great.

[Jordan27]

Just now, ari333 said:

Small states would still be cognizant of the candidates and issues (internet, tv, communication) whether  people campaigned there or not. .

I'm ok with that.

The popular vote means nothing bc clearly it doesn't matter who actually gets the most votes.  The EC needs to go imo. It's outdated. We're not all riding horse and buggies with no means of communication across long distances. quite the opposite.

Nope, you change the rules, you change the campaign.  There is no guarantee Hillary would have won in that scenario. 

States being cognizant is not the point.  Candidates would never go to the small states.  At least with this system, that changes over time.    You want California, Texas, Illinois and New York dominating the campaign.  Why?

[Jordan27]

27 minutes ago, ari333 said:

Small states would still be cognizant of the candidates and issues (internet, tv, communication) whether  people campaigned there or not. .

I'm ok with that.

The popular vote means nothing bc clearly it doesn't matter who actually gets the most votes.  The EC needs to go imo. It's outdated. We're not all riding horse and buggies with no means of communication across long distances. quite the opposite.

HOW DO WE DO IT?  HOW DO WE START?

America never stopped being great.

That's not what liberals preach.

But, America has been great, but our gov't hasn't.  Trump can change that.

[Chicken Wing]

I simply don't understand this assumption, this belief, that Donald Trump can and will actually change things for the better, what, just because he said he would over and over again? Because he had the simple ability to read a preexisting room and seize control of the bandwagon and act like the rallying cry of complaints was his idea? Because he's the new kid on the block to upset the establishment? Since when does "new" equal "better"? I really don't get it, because from what I got from following this election is that half of his proposals and suggestions are more full of shit than a diaper genie and the other half have never even been explained beyond "I will do this/I will get rid of that!" Can someone explain why this makes someone worthy and eligible of being given the chance to lead the free world, because to me it just looks like a consummate marketing professional's pitch to people who are enamored by bright shiny objects without any care or concern for whether or not the product is any good or useful to them. It just seems like it is, and as they were tired of what they had before, that's good enough for them.

Honestly no offense, but I don't get it. Change is good, it certainly is, but not at the expense of competence, and from what I've seen, heard and read from Donald Trump throughout this whole thing he just continually reaffirms to me that he is, quite frankly, incompetent for the job of president. 

And I think the Clinton team erred in focusing their pitch on how Donald Trump was mostly temperamentally unfit for the office of president, which he certainly is, too. I think people already got a good gander at his temperament -- and it never stopped him from coasting to victory in the Republican primary, or maintaining surprisingly high poll numbers (apparently not nearly as high as people were really thinking) in the final months and winning the whole shebang on November 8. Clearly people didn't care that he was a misogynistic, erratic, temper tantrum-throwing, race-baiting, reactionary weasel with no respect for anyone or anything but himself, or they wouldn't have voted him as far as he got. All they cared about was that he was supposedly the harbinger of change that would "fix" everything, because they were itching for someone to do that and he just said he would. Clinton should have hammered home the point that Donald Trump would do no such thing because he quite simply didn't know how to govern or do any of the things he claimed or how any of it even worked. Focus on his many gaffes in understanding how foreign policy worked. Highlight the many fact checks that disprove the record-breaking number of lies and false statements he puts out on a daily an even hourly basis. Point out the research done by independent analysts who found that Trump's economic proposals, if enacted, would take away more jobs than it would create and plunge the nation into another recession within the next two years. Hell, do a commercial featuring a sound bite of his remarks at that Florida rally that betray his apparent cluelessness as to what Obamacare even is. Expose him for the fraud that he is and explain to people that he is not the best person for the job because he demonstrates repeatedly that he doesn't even know how to do it. Welp, too late now. People will have to figure it out for themselves the hard way.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Chicken Wing

[CarolMK]

Now that we have a Republican president and a Republican House and Senate, I imagine anything Trump proposes will go through. Obama was blocked all the years he was in office because the House and Senate wouldn't approve anything. 

I imagine the first thing to go with a Trump presidency will be the Affordable Care Act. 

[katha]

5 minutes ago, Chicken Wing said:

I simply don't understand this assumption, this belief, that Donald Trump can and will actually change things for the better, what, just because he said he would over and over again? Because he had the simple ability to read a preexisting room and seize control of the bandwagon and act like the rallying cry of complaints was his idea? Because he's the new kid on the block to upset the establishment? Since when does "new" equal "better"? I really don't get it, because from what I got from following this election is that half of his proposals and suggestions are more full of shit than a diaper genie and the other half have never even been explained beyond "I will do this/I will get rid of that!" Can someone explain why this makes someone worthy and eligible of being given the chance to lead the free world, because to me it just looks like a consummate marketing professional's pitch to people who are enamored by bright shiny objects.

Honestly no offense, but I don't get it.

Since TV became a huge factor in US elections, "being able to read a room" has been a clear advantage for any candidate. Kennedy won a close election because he came across as more appealing than Nixon in TV debates, at least that's the received wisdom. Reagan was charismatic and could work a crowd, Clinton was folksy and charming. Many people apparently perceived Bush junior as folksy and charming, compared to "cold" Gore and Kerry. Obama is charismatic and can work a crowd, that helped him against McCain and Romney and Clinton. You could argue that this is the nature of campaigns now, and has been for a long time.

[KerleyQ]

5 hours ago, Ohwell said:

Yeah, see how far the name-calling got you.

Apparently, when you hit on just the right combination of name-calling, it gets you to the White House. 

5 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

Preach it. I get so fucking tired of being told not to point out that people are being revolting bigots, because it hurts their poor little feelings. After all, they're usually the ones demanding that political correctness be done away with so people can say whatever they want. If they want their opinions to be seen as valid and rational, then they should try explaining them instead of going to rallies and shouting about how Mexicans should get the hell out.

But it's a vicious circle, because calling them out on their shit just makes them even more determined to be offended, which makes them double down on their views, which makes liberals want to call them out even more.

We had it over here, with Brexit, where we keep being told that all the 'elitists' who look down on those with uncharitable views about foreigners are the problem, and the bigots are the ones we should now be listening to. Because they're the ones with the 'real' experiences and the ones who have lost out. I'm sorry, but that's a crass generalisation, to suggest that they're the only ones who have suffered, and to suggest that all people who have suffered have resorted to hatred and anger.

It's true that the establishment, whatever side of the political spectrum they are on, and whatever country they are in, has lost sight of what is best for a lot of their citizens, but tearing the whole thing down with ignorance and bile is not the way to fix anything. And besides, all the Americans did was elect an oaf as president. They still put all the other useless, elitist congressmen and senators back into office. So just what is it they want? Real change or just a chance to vent their anger?

It continually amazes me that the same people who demand the right to call people "retard" the N word, and any number of other slurs, in the name of being "politically incorrect," lose that "it's OK to call names that offend people" thing when you call them racist (or whatever other label they earn through their speech and behavior).  Are we doing away with that darn "PC culture run amok" thing or not, Republicans? 

5 hours ago, backgroundnoise said:

I can't get the quote box to go away.

Anyway, I won't rest easier until the first test of how Trump will handle his supporters' real or threatened violence against those who criticize him.  

He'll take it as the highest compliment someone can pay him.  He'll "condemn" it in a "wink wink" way that makes it clear he's flattered.  

5 hours ago, backgroundnoise said:

At least with only 278 EC votes and her likely win of the popular vote, there is no mandate.  That's all that's keeping me sane right now.

Guess again.  Paul Ryan went on TV this morning glorying in Trump's "mandate."  Never mind that he saw no such mandate when President Obama won handily (and didn't lose the popular vote). 

4 hours ago, MulletorHater said:

My husband (a Republican who voted for President Obama twice) allowed me to talk through this early this morning.  I firmly believe that some of this was a backlash against us having a Black president.  My husband indicated that there was no way people were ready for a female president after that.  Plus, he went in on Hillary's faults and believed that she was not the best candidate.  But, I have to wonder would it have been any female candidate or was it this particular one.  I always knew that the Clinton hate was real but was stunned to see the level of it, especially toward Hillary.  I can't forget the tee shirts or the rallies where people not only called for her to be jailed, but advocating her assassination should she win.  

And, yes, the DNC needs to clean house and bring in some new blood.  I have no idea how there were so few potential DNC candidates who were unwilling to run for the nomination.  

I fully believe this is a big part of it.  The first black POTUS was a huge blow for them.  There was no way they were going to stand for the first woman right after.  Not in their old white boys club.  

40 minutes ago, Jordan27 said:

Congratulations to President-Elect Donald J. Trump.  A convincing win by someone who weathered more hate from liberals, Dems and a leftist biased media than anyone in history.

Time to make America great again and get rid of liberal influence.

Oh, how sweet it is.

Call me crazy, but I don't think it's ever "great" to have the entire government run by one party, only representing the will of half of the country.  You may not like the "liberal influence" but it's our country, too.  As much as the GOP likes to blame President Obama for the divide in this country, it's really the GOP attitude that our government should not contain any liberal influence, despite half of the people they are supposed to represent wanting that liberal influence.  Ridding the government of one side of the conversation is how you end up with dictatorships.  

11 minutes ago, Jordan27 said:

That's not what liberals preach.

But, America has been great, but our gov't hasn't.  Trump can change that.

Funny, I watched both conventions this summer, and only one of them was preaching what dire, awful condition this country is in.  Spoiler alert, it wasn't the liberal party.  The DNC focused on a positive message.  The RNC featured a wannabe dictator telling us what a hell hole this country is now and how only he can save us.  He'll definitely change things, but it won't be on the "great" side of the ledger.