PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[photon]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

Yeah, i'd say that all press have to apply for new credentials. And if you don't want to be a journalist, then step aside and let someone else who wants to report the news take your spot. Go be a blogger.

And who gets to decide who is a journalist and who isn't? I don't care if it's Trump or Clinton or Obama, the government doesn't get to decide which news organizations are press and get access to government and who aren't.

If the public doesn't trust the media, that's the media's job to fix, not government's job to create a Russian style approved media. An independent media not controlled by government is pretty important.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

If she also enjoyed the level of support from the black community that Obama had she would have won. I also think a great number of Dems stayed home because they had news outlets like huffpo telling everyone its a foregone conclusion, 99% and all that lead up to that, and simply stayed home.

Yeah, I think a lot of people were too sure the Dems would win and so a lot of people didn't even bother to vote. Hopefully they learn their lesson this time.

If they had a do-over the next day, I would bet that turnout and results would have completely reversed the election. But, it's ultimately their own fault.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

the population has grown

and Dubya got 62 million votes in 2004

There's still like 4 million votes left to count in California alone, when the count is done she'll have more.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by photon

There's still like 4 million votes left to count in California alone, when the count is done she'll have more.

sure but again, the population has grown. voter turnout in 2004 was 57%. 2016 only 52%

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by photon

And who gets to decide who is a journalist and who isn't? I don't care if it's Trump or Clinton or Obama, the government doesn't get to decide which news organizations are press and get access to government and who aren't.

If the public doesn't trust the media, that's the media's job to fix, not government's job to create a Russian style approved media. An independent media not controlled by government is pretty important.

In the case of the White House briefing room, it's always been the case that they decide who gets in and who doesn't and where they sit as there is a limit on space.

Beyond that however, I have no idea how it's been decided in the past.

[photon]

Trump lies (or is ignorant) about the NYT on twitter.

Wow, the @nytimes is losing thousands of subscribers because of their very poor and highly inaccurate coverage of the "Trump phenomena"

They actually net gained subscribers, lost some physical but gained many more digital.

The @nytimes sent a letter to their subscribers apologizing for their BAD coverage of me. I wonder if it will change - doubt it?

That's how some of the media are characterizing the letter, but reading it says the opposite.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxAfOrrUQAEHOjw.jpg

The @nytimes states today that DJT believes "more countries should acquire nuclear weapons." How dishonest are they. I never said this!

That's not what the NYT said, they said "Mr. Trump has suggested that more countries should acquire nuclear weapons, to protect themselves without Washington’s help. He has said allies like Saudi Arabia must pay for American support."

Which he absolutely did say.

It's not going to be any different.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Eh, there are lots of things that could be considered decisive. I mean, if you simply eliminated the ballot of every racist who voted, she would have won.

Are you suggesting that all, or substantially all racists are white males that vote Republican?

This is one of the many attitudes that needs to change - racism is not the domain of any one segment of the population.

Identity politics and the desire to define our society via racial subgroups only leads to more racial division and distrust.

The entire conversation of identity segregation is divisive and counter-productive IMO.

I am not saying we shouldn't talk about it, I am saying we need to stop defining ourselves in these terms.

[calumniate]

As a pretty extreme leftist I'm becoming more and more ok with trump being elected. Sad but true! As Dan Carlin mentioned I too have a chicken little gene in me. It's good that people are upset.. I am too. But Hillary was the equivalent of harper with a bone or two to pick. And judging by history you never want to poke the bear (Russia)

À lot of what trump said through the election was divide and rule type of rhetoric. Can't believe it worked really but it did. One can only hope he doesn't go full crazy and do it with the world. At least the democrats have something to fight for now. Under Hillary it would have stuck a baby soother in moth Dems mouths

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by New Era

So, does that mean the Democrats learn something from this election and run someone that will appeal to the common man? I can't help but think that Elizabeth Warren and Cory Booker would completely fire up the Democratic base and reach a lot of disenfranchised moderate Republicans. Kamala Harris would be an outstanding pick as well, but I think she needs more seasoning.

I would hope so, because the party is in shambles.

Cory Booker I can see, Warren I don't see.

Originally Posted by Photon

Clinton has more votes than any presidential candidate other than Obama, ever. It's more about the distribution of votes than the number of votes. Some of that are people in the Midwest that voted for Obama based on his change message, and those people voted for Trump's change message.

Some of it was Trump's appeal to a group of voters that usually doesn't get out and vote like they did because they usually don't have a voice for their, uh, ideas.

Yes she won the popular vote. She won the democratic strongholds; the metro areas and lost everywhere outside those areas. Trump won all the swing states and then created a few more and put them up on the board. When you win major city centers with a 60-40; 70-30 split of course you are going to rack up the votes. They didn't accomplish anything outside of the areas they were going to win anyways and it cost them the election.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, I think a lot of people were too sure the Dems would win and so a lot of people didn't even bother to vote. Hopefully they learn their lesson this time.

If they had a do-over the next day, I would bet that turnout and results would have completely reversed the election. But, it's ultimately their own fault.

When the whole 'I'm moving to Canada' thing got going, Ellen Degeneres had a cute quit about it where her punchline was something to the effect of "here's a thought... get out and vote!"

Apparently people didn't listen.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by photon

And who gets to decide who is a journalist and who isn't? I don't care if it's Trump or Clinton or Obama, the government doesn't get to decide which news organizations are press and get access to government and who aren't.

If the public doesn't trust the media, that's the media's job to fix, not government's job to create a Russian style approved media. An independent media not controlled by government is pretty important.

And where was this outrage when the CNN, aka the Clinton News Network, jumped the shark when it came to objective coverage?

Wolf Blitzer was most embarassing in my opinion.

[photon]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

sure but again, the population has grown. voter turnout in 2004 was 57%. 2016 only 52%

Where do you see the 52% for 2016? I've read it's up around 58%.

http://www.electproject.org/2016g

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

And where was this outrage when the CNN, aka the Clinton News Network, jumped the shark when it came to objective coverage?

Wolf Blitzer was most embarassing in my opinion.

I thought the dude that was doing the intra-state and intra-county analysis was embarrassing.

All he could do was drill down into counties where Clinton was expected to get more votes and mentally do the math of how many votes she would need to get there in order to swing back the state in her favour.

He was so transparent in his bias that it almost made me root for Trump.

[Dogbert]

My new workout program involves something called the snatch-grip deadlift. Insert Donald Trump joke here.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

I thought the dude that was doing the intra-state and intra-county analysis was embarrassing.

All he could do was drill down into counties where Clinton was expected to get more votes and mentally do the math of how many votes she would need to get there in order to swing back the state in her favour.

He was so transparent in his bias that it almost made me root for Trump.

God if I had to hear about them waiting on Broward County one more time I was ready to smash my TV. I get it, it has large urban Dem & latino population, but it is not going to make up 100,000+ votes with 10% of the precincts left to report...

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Are you suggesting that all, or substantially all racists are white males that vote Republican?

That's an exaggeration but statistics and voting behaviors support the claim that if you hold racist ideals you are much more likely to vote Republican. If you have a defined party affiliation, you are more likely to allow racist ideals to affect your view on social issues.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...ite-democrats/

That is not to say all Republicans are racists, just that racists associate more with the Republican party than any other.

This is one of the many attitudes that needs to change - racism is not the domain of any one segment of the population.

Social scientists would disagree with that. Racism is most prevalent in certain regions in the United States. Also, racism is more prevalent with certain age groups and certain education levels. Also, racism is not just a white problem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ing-to-google/

http://ijr.com/2014/04/133024-10-cha...merica-really/

Identity politics and the desire to define our society via racial subgroups only leads to more racial division and distrust.

The entire conversation of identity segregation is divisive and counter-productive IMO.

I am not saying we shouldn't talk about it, I am saying we need to stop defining ourselves in these terms.

Completely agree, but it is very difficult when people chose to identify themselves as such. How do you break that behavior? We had this discussion on our campus last week. It is difficult to break away from identity politics when identity is all around us and forced upon us. It would be nice to say we can put an end to it, but when people are forced to put down their identify selections on almost every piece of paperwork you submit, it is hard to break away from the practice. How would you suggest we move away from identity politics when it is ingrained in our culture to expect it at every turn?

[photon]

Originally Posted by transplant99

In the case of the White House briefing room, it's always been the case that they decide who gets in and who doesn't and where they sit as there is a limit on space.

Beyond that however, I have no idea how it's been decided in the past.

That's deciding on who can be in the room, but that's not deciding on who actually gets media credentials. As far as I can find out the process is:

Get approved by the Standing Committee of Correspondents, elected by accredited reporters for a congressional press pass. They have to show they work for a news organization and that that organization is independent of any group that lobbies the government.

Pass the White House's additional background checks.

Reporters can be suspended. EDIT: Usually for security or similar reasons, obviously not for quality or leaning of reporting.

After that the pass can be renewed yearly with no additional checks. So on the surface it would seem benign as it doesn't seem the White House directly approves the credentials. But it will be interesting to see.

Got that info from here:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...&ct=clnk&gl=ca

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

And where was this outrage when the CNN, aka the Clinton News Network, jumped the shark when it came to objective coverage?

Wolf Blitzer was most embarassing in my opinion.

I don't think you're understanding what I said, it had nothing to do with bias of any specific outlet, for every Fox and Breitbart there'll be a CNN and HuffPo.

I said the government doesn't get to decide which one is and which one isn't legitimate, or which one does and which one doesn't get media credentials.

EDIT: And I switched from CNN to PBS as soon as PBS's online stream came live, I don't have TV. So I didn't see much of CNN's coverage.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Are you suggesting that all, or substantially all racists are white males that vote Republican?

No. Just that the racist vote went largely to Trump in this particular election... I can't imagine that racist attitudes led very many people to vote for Clinton. Though I definitely think there are fewer real racists out there than some would suggest, it seems pretty obvious that had he not received those peoples' votes, he would probably have lost the election.

The margin was small enough that those votes likely tipped the scales, depending on how you look at it (you could say the same thing about disaffected liberals who voted for a third party in protest at Clinton being the nominee).

This is one of the many attitudes that needs to change - racism is not the domain of any one segment of the population. Identity politics and the desire to define our society via racial subgroups only leads to more racial division and distrust. The entire conversation of identity segregation is divisive and counter-productive IMO.

You're preaching to the choir, trust me.

[GirlySports]

So trump was saying that jails are too full and draining the system.

1. Deport illegals currently in jail
2. Release youths with minor crimes.

Would this work?

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

No. Just that the racist vote went largely to Trump in this particular election... I can't imagine that racist attitudes led very many people to vote for Clinton. Though I definitely think there are fewer real racists out there than some would suggest, it seems pretty obvious that had he not received those peoples' votes, he would probably have lost the election.

The margin was small enough that those votes likely tipped the scales, depending on how you look at it (you could say the same thing about disaffected liberals who voted for a third party in protest at Clinton being the nominee).

You're preaching to the choir, trust me.

The margin was small enough that you could really say that about any dividing factor you wanted, though, isn't it? Folks are picking racist because "reasons". You can pick pretty much any factor you want, and say "if more or less people who believe in [x] did or didn't show up, the election could have been different.

Want to figure out how to make the election results more real? Figure out how to reach the 45+% who couldn't be bothered to vote. There's a difference maker right there.