American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS (Archive)

[GGG]

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

talks about giving the country back to the people.
lost the popular vote

People need to get over that.

Trump was elected fairly under the US constitution. That he didn't receive the popular vote doesn't matter. It's like the people that complain in Canada that the Prime Ministers party only got 38% of the vote. It doesn't matter.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by TurdFerguson

talks about giving the country back to the people.
lost the popular vote

If the election was based on popular vote this would be relevant.

[Looch City]

Oh here we go. Crazy rants incoming.

[Fuzz]

...or orange...

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by GGG

People need to get over that.

Trump was elected fairly under the US constitution. That he didn't receive the popular vote doesn't matter. It's like the people that complain in Canada that the Prime Ministers party only got 38% of the vote. It doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If the election was based on popular vote this would be relevant.

Its not about using it to erode his legitimacy or contest the election. It's about pointing out that the man ran a campaign and a platform that caused more people to vote against him than for him. Sure he figured out the right combination of people to get him a win. That doesn't make him a qualified president with a meaningful platform. Its like when an NHL team makes it to the playoffs on loser points and SO wins. It doesn't make them a good team, just a lucky one.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by station

I'm looking for:

1. Woefully unprepared admin officials. Articles in the NYT, etc pointing out that hundreds of appointments are just literally vacant and the others are filled with unqualified cronies. Bad things will inevitably happen (natural disasters, foreign military crises, terror attacks). The response to these could be FEMA / Katrina scandal times a thousand.

Probably, but we won't know until he actually starts enacting these things. For all we know the opposites could happen. However the normal checks and balances are out of sync now with the Republican's having the ability to put anything through and the Supreme Court Appointments.

Originally Posted by station

2. Full federal implementation of Kansas / Louisiana style Tea Party wet dream policy agenda. Massive tax cuts for the rich leading to budget crises and govt agencies so unfunded that they can't function. Rich-poor divide gets ridiculous, middle class shrinks further. ACA is repealed and not replaced. Endless attacks on civil rights, LGBT, defunding of PP. Full anti-science agenda and promotion of 'religious freedom' laws and creation-based education.

Maybe, but you need to remember that its not like the Republicans themselves don't want to get re-elected, and that might be the only checks and balance left available. We will probably see a pretty severe split in terms of the Republican Party.

Originally Posted by station

3. Non-GOP Trump programs like infrastructure spending, ripping up trade agreements, building that wall, etc die on the house floor. Trump loses interest, resorts to full governing by Twitter and takes an absurd amount of vacantions leaving Pence in charge, impeachment or not.

NAFTA is going to be shredded and re-negotiated, and its going to be all about protecting America's jobs, and all about trade is trade. I also see the US trying to force China to actually open their markets. I would also expect that America is going to take a dim view of artificially low currencies. Some of these aren't going to be bad. The China trade question is going to be interesting to watch, because China has gotten away with pretty unfair trade practices for a long time.

Originally Posted by station

4. Russia gets very aggressive in Europe and the Middle East and the US shrugs. Western Europe countries get very nervous and start increasing their own military proliferation.

That's going to happen no matter who's president. Obama's foreign policy was a disaster and because of it, America has alienated their former best allies and lost any sense of control in the middle east, and basically granted that control to the Russians. If anything, Obama left an enormous mess to whoever would have been coming in as president. I don't disagree at all about his unhappiness at American NATO allies not pulling their weight, this is a discussion that has to happen, especially with a resurgent Russia in the picture in Eastern Europe.

Originally Posted by station

5. Hardcore blue states fed up with the tea party agenda and ineffectiveness of the Democratic Party start to seriously consider ceceeding from the union.

Won't happen, we didn't see States like Texas leaving . I have said though, that if Trump is tossed out or impeached that you will see a rise in violence not only based on race, but political alignment. A Trump impeachment will be every far Right Winger don't trust the government militia types call to action. They tend to believe that Trump is one of theirs and the accumulation of their protests against a government that they view as evil.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dobbles

Its not about using it to erode his legitimacy or contest the election. It's about pointing out that the man ran a campaign and a platform that caused more people to vote against him than for him. Sure he figured out the right combination of people to get him a win. That doesn't make him a qualified president with a legitimate platform. Its like when an NHL team makes it to the playoffs on loser points and SO wins. It doesn't make them a good team, just a lucky one.

So what your saying in this country is that Trudeau isn't a qualified Prime Minister with a qualified platform. That no Western Government that wins in spite of the popular vote is legitimate.

Popular vote is irrelevant in their election system and ours. So why complain about it, it means nothing. Under their laws Trump's election results carried the victory and he is the legitimate president with a legitimate platform.

Or would you be complaining about Hillary as president if she won with a minority popular vote. Would you be sitting here today if Hillary was being inaugurated musing that she was an illegitimate president with an illegitimate background.

[Locke]

So long as they get good coverage of him giving Trudeau a wedgie.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by dobbles

Its not about using it to erode his legitimacy or contest the election. It's about pointing out that the man ran a campaign and a platform that caused more people to vote against him than for him. Sure he figured out the right combination of people to get him a win. That doesn't make him a qualified president with a legitimate platform. Its like when an NHL team makes it to the playoffs on loser points and SO wins. It doesn't make them a good team, just a lucky one.

be clear. are you saying he's not the legitimate president because Clinton got more votes than he did?
yes or no.

I'm just trying to understand the point you're trying to make.

[the_only_turek_fan]

He just spent 16 minutes ripping the 4 former Presidents 10 feet to his right.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So what your saying in this country is that Trudeau isn't a qualified Prime Minister with a qualified platform. That no Western Government that wins in spite of the popular vote is legitimate.

Popular vote is irrelevant in their election system and ours. So why complain about it, it means nothing. Under their laws Trump's election results carried the victory and he is the legitimate president with a legitimate platform.

Or would you be complaining about Hillary as president if she won with a minority popular vote. Would you be sitting here today if Hillary was being inaugurated musing that she was an illegitimate president with an illegitimate background.

First off I'm not saying anything about Trudeau. I don't follow Canadian politics.

Second off, once again, I am not questioning legitimacy of the election or anything like that. Could I not be more clear on that point? I used the word legitimate in terms of his platform referencing the fact that many of his idea are not realistic.

Lastly, I would be complaining if Hilary had lost the popular vote and won the electoral. Believe it or not, I was not particularly enthused by her candidacy and some people are actually capable of being unbiased.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by dobbles

some people are actually capable of being unbiased.

Nope.

But I don't really get your point either. Yes, he was elected despite receiving fewer votes than his opponent. Is your point "that's bad and I don't like it"? Or is there something else?

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

be clear. are you saying he's not the legitimate president because Clinton got more votes than he did?
yes or no.

I'm just trying to understand the point you're trying to make.

As stated above, I used the word legitimate in reference to his platform. Thought the two words being directly next to each other was obvious enough, but because multiple people have been confused I was obviously mistaken. I will go back and edit.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is it normal for an incoming president to talk so negatively? Sounds like a campaign speech.

If one had just awoken from a Rumpelstiltskin snooze, turned on the tv, and listened to that speech. This is how they'd picture the US;

Spoiler!

It's just all so depressing.....

[MrMastodonFarm]

One last chance for Biden to take everyone out

[EldrickOnIce]

Had they actually voted, the protests today would be unnecessary.
Congrats America - you got what you paid for.

[photon]

https://twitter.com/potus

That's a picture from Obama's 2009 inauguration on the newly blank POTUS twitter account.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Sometimes being in the CIA is about directing traffic

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

Had they actually voted, the protests today would be unnecessary.
Congrats America - you got what you paid for.

Yeah this is what bothers me. You have mass protestors, actors at the Golden Globes speaking out, etc. If it was that important to Streep maybe she should have come out with that before the election when it mattered? May have helped the cause and swayed enough voters to change but speaking out after does nothing but cause more dissention in the country. All these protesters where were they before the election? It's unfortunate but the process was done fairly and they have to suck it up and accept it.

[N-E-B]

Maybe I just don't buy the fear mongering, but I can't say "President Donald Trump" without laughing. This isn't terrifying to me, this is just straight up goofy and bizarre.