PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[burn_this_city]

Anyone else watching CNN right now?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Slava

I had a hard time with this explanation. I think its an attempt to say "I wasn't really wrong" when in fact he wasn't anywhere close to right. It's more than just 1/100 here and there. Its those voters being in states that matter and as a result flipping those contests. (Unless I'm missing something?)

Yeah but everybody missed, all his model can do is go off polling and historical trends all of which got turned upside down. At the end of the day, 538's model was less wrong than everybody else, giving Trump a significant chance overall to win when nobody else gave him a shot.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Not even going to bother - you have been running around like a chicken with its head cut off for the last 24 hours.
I laugh at her because she is an idiot. I think the entire "microagressdion" crowd are malignant idiots - to the Left what the KKK is to the right. See, we in Russia tried having the Progressive Left govern - we got women's rights, free love, artistic expression, equal pay and the slaughter of millions.

I rarely agree with calgaryblood, but get over yourself.

Your post was classless and your labelling of the person as part of the "micro-aggressions" crowd, or that people like her are somehow similar to the KKK is just plainly stupid. Trump has said some pretty horrible things and people are worried. Even if you aren't, there's no need to be smug and pile on.

It's an ugly look, no matter which "side" you're on.

But hey, go ahead and suggest being scared for the safety of minorities is the same attitude that leads to the horrible crimes against humanity your carry in your history. Really productive.

[FlamesAddiction]

https://www.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSL8N1DA377?

Everyone's favourite neo-nazi party is ecstatic of course saying it is great for countries that want to be ethnically pure.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Slava

I had a hard time with this explanation. I think its an attempt to say "I wasn't really wrong" when in fact he wasn't anywhere close to right. It's more than just 1/100 here and there. Its those voters being in states that matter and as a result flipping those contests. (Unless I'm missing something?)

I think he's trying to say polling is a blunt instrument and the polling error here was not remarkable.

I object to the notion that his forecast was wrong as I said in the other thread he got way to much credit for winning coin flips previously.. In my opinion he was the most accurate Moddle as he predicted exactly how Trump would win if he did and that the firewall was not that strong in a close national race. And gave trump a 30% chance of winning. In a world of people telling him he was Sand bagging Clinton, where the RNC thought they were going to lose he was the one saying hey wait it's not over 30% is a big chance.

So the guy (Northrop) people are heralding as calling the race predicted Trump would get 52.5% of the two party vote. So that's a 5 point two party spread. When the ballots are counted the result will be Clinton plus 1.

So in terms of predicting the popular vote 538 was off by about 2- 2.5 whereas as Northrop was off by 6. So who made the more accurate prediction? Is the fact that the error was across where the race was decided meaningful?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I rarely agree with calgaryblood, but get over yourself.

Your post was classless and your labelling of the person as part of the "micro-aggressions" crowd, or that people like her are somehow similar to the KKK is just plainly stupid. Trump has said some pretty horrible things and people are worried. Even if you aren't, there's no need to be smug and pile on.

It's an ugly look, no matter which "side" you're on.

But hey, go ahead and suggest being scared for the safety of minorities is the same attitude that leads to the horrible crimes against humanity your carry in your history. Really productive.

Can we at least admit that stating you don't like posting selfies but just had to post one of yourself crying because you're scared for America is ridiculous?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Anyone else watching CNN right now?

Trump will unite the country

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by nik-

Can we at least admit that stating you don't like posting selfies but just had to post one of yourself crying because you're scared for America is ridiculous?

Yes.

100% yes.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Trump will unite the country

He's the most liberal republican ever elected

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I rarely agree with calgaryblood, but get over yourself.

Your post was classless and your labelling of the person as part of the "micro-aggressions" crowd, or that people like her are somehow similar to the KKK is just plainly stupid. Trump has said some pretty horrible things and people are worried. Even if you aren't, there's no need to be smug and pile on.

It's an ugly look, no matter which "side" you're on.

But hey, go ahead and suggest being scared for the safety of minorities is the same attitude that leads to the horrible crimes against humanity your carry in your history. Really productive.

I have to agree with this as well. Ok it's true the states aren't exactly a dictatorship or third world country. So you can use that argument and say 'big deal'. However they happen to be a very powerful and influential country. Remember Bush and Iraq? These moves aren't without consequence.

The nuclear deal with Iran is what I'm most worried about right now. Trump has proven to be someone who doesn't really care about the law and will deal with indiscretions later, in court. The 'straight shooter' allure he has is a dangerous one. But that's a little off topic.. it just seems like you're brushing aside assault because you've seen worse. I would argue that his behaviour in this area sheds some light on how he deals with his business and political affairs on a daily basis. Time will tell I suppose..

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by zamler

I honestly thought a Trump win would force the left to reflect and reevaluate instead they are doubling down on the same tactics that helped Donald Trump get elected in the first place.

the US doesn't have a left, just different degrees of right

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

Not even going to bother - you have been running around like a chicken with its head cut off for the last 24 hours.
I laugh at her because she is an idiot. I think the entire "microagressdion" crowd are malignant idiots - to the Left what the KKK is to the right. See, we in Russia tried having the Progressive Left govern - we got women's rights, free love, artistic expression, equal pay and the slaughter of millions.

Phew, well at least there have been no right-wing, barbaric dictators.

Regards,
Hitler, Pinochet, Franco, etc., etc.

[metallicat]

The conservative gloating has really come out of the woodwork. I wouldn't have cared if a republican got in if it was Mitt Romney, or Jeb Bush, or any other "normal" politicians. The Americans elected a man who is a potential rapist at worst, and a fear mongering **** disturber at best. It boggles my mind that this could have happened.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by zamler

I honestly thought a Trump win would force the left to reflect and reevaluate instead they are doubling down on the same tactics that helped Donald Trump get elected in the first place.

Yep, god damn minorities and their allies trying to stand up against discrimination and bigotry. Need to shut their uppity mouths and learn their place. Four years of increased bigotry and discrimination ought to teach 'em!

[photon]

This seems kind of extreme it couldn't go this far could it? I mean despite wanting a conservative supreme court, the majority of people still support same sex marriage (for example).

Unless Trump goes off-script (always a possibility), that justice will also be cut from the ultra-conservative, "new federalist" cloth of Justice Thomas. Trump has already used the Right’s standard language of “interpret[ing] the Constitution the way the Founders wanted it interpreted” but his picks from the Heritage Foundation list are to the right of the usual “originalist” figures. In fact, it is Justice Roberts, as a judicial conservative, who will be the swing vote between three or four liberals and three or four ultra-conservatives.

It’s important to be clear about what this means. Yes, particular issues will be affected. The federal right to marriage equality will almost certainly be overturned. So will Roe v. Wade. We will return to a country in which many rights are vastly different from state to state. (The exception is gun control, most forms of which will likely be banned nationwide under a broad reading of the Second Amendment.)

But the real impact is far more profound. Justice Thomas’s judicial philosophy would roll back most of the federal government as we know it today. According to his understanding of federalism, civil rights laws, environmental regulations, labor rules—anything that relies on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution for its basis—would probably be unconstitutional. If the Commerce Clause really means “regulate interstate commerce, but only in a narrow sense,” all those laws fail.

Take, for example, laws prohibiting racial discrimination. The constitutional basis of those laws is that businesses and other organizations are always involved in interstate commerce, even if they’re local, because that’s how capitalism works today. But in Justice Thomas’s stated opinions, that’s not good enough; the Commerce Clause only allows Congress to regulate commerce itself, not business activities related to it. Civil rights laws, therefore, are beyond the federal government’s constitutional power.

A similar theory applies to the First Amendment. For Justice Thomas, not only should the First Amendment be read narrowly, so as to permit prayers in school, aid to churches, and religious displays on public property, but he has written that the Establishment Clause only applies to the federal government, not to the states. That would mean that, say, Mississippi could officially become a Protestant Christian state, or a Southern Baptist state, or whatever its legislature chose. (There may, of course, be state constitutional barriers, but they could be amended.)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...overnment.html

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yep, god damn minorities and their allies trying to stand up against discrimination and bigotry. Need to shut their uppity mouths and learn their place. Four years of increased bigotry and discrimination ought to teach 'em!

I wish one day minorities wouldn't be mentioned as minorities and there will be no 'voting blocks'. People vote as people and look at the issues that affect them.

People are shocked (and some appalled) why white women wouldn't vote for a white woman. That's not correct either.

[calgaryblood]

The majority do support it in America but I find it extremely troubling 37% are against gay marriage in the U.S.A.

Numbers have improved dramatically from 10 years ago but that number is staggering.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I wish one day minorities wouldn't be mentioned as minorities and there will be no 'voting blocks'. People vote as people and look at the issues that affect them.

You can't seriously be this oblivious, can you? Voter suppression, imprisonment, poverty, police brutality, racism, etc., all effect certain blocks of people more than others. It's not hard to then see why said blocks of people would vote against the party that is actively perpetuating these problems.

[metallicat]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I wish one day minorities wouldn't be mentioned as minorities and there will be no 'voting blocks'. People vote as people and look at the issues that affect them.

People are shocked (and some appalled) why white women wouldn't vote for a white woman. That's not correct either.

Yes, that would be nice, wouldn't it? But you, as a minority, should understand why that isn't possible. Trump ran a campaign with clear intent to get rid of Muslims from the USA. If that isn't a reason why we need to still talk about minorities then I don't know what is.

But I don't think a single self respecting woman should have voted for Trump with the way he talks about and treats the women in his life.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You can't seriously be this oblivious, can you? Voter suppression, imprisonment, poverty, police brutality, racism, etc., all effect certain blocks of people more than others. It's not hard to then see why said blocks of people would vote against the party that is actively perpetuating these problems.

That's a good point.

I might be oblivious because I'm caught in the middle I think. I'm Asian! So where do Asian-American fall in this paradigm? I don't believe the issues you mentioned voter suppression, imprisonment, poverty, police brutality, racism really affect Asian-Americans as much as the other groups. So what would be the reason for that. Are we pretty much white? I don't think I heard Asian-Americans mentioned once in this election.

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

Yes, that would be nice, wouldn't it? But you, as a minority, should understand why that isn't possible. Trump ran a campaign with clear intent to get rid of Muslims from the USA. If that isn't a reason why we need to still talk about minorities then I don't know what is.

But I don't think a single self respecting woman should have voted for Trump with the way he talks about and treats the women in his life.

I just saw this. Are Asians a minority or have we lumped into the majority?

Let's discuss cause this is where i'm caught.