PGT: President-Elect Donald J Trump

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Yeah, you could probably look at a dozen predictable factors that ended up tipping the scales. But as for voter turnout, I haven't got a clue how you get those people to vote. And I don't know if you'd want to. Can you imagine what would happen if for example they passed a law like the one in Australia that mandates voting? The results you'd get?

I actually can't, honestly. I have no idea what that would do in a country like the USA.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by photon

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'm not a great fan of CNN. It's depressing, all those ads about psoriasis medication and reverse mortgages, and the endless talking heads rehashing the same thing over and over.

But I really don't think it's the same as Fox, and definitely not Breitbart. I doubt Breitbart had a paid member of Clinton's staff on board to repeat Clinton talking points and refute Trump. And I don't believe Fox was paying Clinton surrogates to sit on every single panel and give her side of the story.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Basically, their voter base is less committed and less engaged than the Republicans.

"The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity."

[photon]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I'm not a great fan of CNN. It's depressing, all those ads about psoriasis medication and reverse mortgages, and the endless talking heads rehashing the same thing over and over.

But I really don't think it's the same as Fox, and definitely not Breitbart. I doubt Breitbart had a paid member of Clinton's staff on board to repeat Clinton talking points and refute Trump. And I don't believe Fox was paying Clinton surrogates to sit on every single panel and give her side of the story.

True, I was using them more for comparison of perception than my actual evaluation of them as my point was about any media access.

I mean people seem to forget that Trump heavily insulted and basically froze out Fox news early on and gave all kinds of exclusive access to CNN. I think he used that to leverage Fox to be much more of a safe space later on, but they definitely weren't the anti-Trump network that people think.

Might be a preview of Trump's strategy in the White House, if he can play Ryan and McConnell off of Democrats, he might get more of what he wants rather than what Ryan wants.

[photon]

Thank God... the only thing more agonizing than the election would be 4 more years of Congressional hearings on Clinton.

A senior congressional Republican says the GOP's agenda in the upcoming Congress doesn't include further investigations of Hillary Clinton.

Speaking Sunday on Fox News, House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy says Republicans on Capitol Hill will focus on job creation, reforming and repealing President Barack Obama's health care law, and rebuilding's America's roads and bridges.

https://www.apnews.com/371e4c9462604...linton-inquiry

[calumniate]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Yeah, you could probably look at a dozen predictable factors that ended up tipping the scales. But as for voter turnout, I haven't got a clue how you get those people to vote. And I don't know if you'd want to. Can you imagine what would happen if for example they passed a law like the one in Australia that mandates voting? The results you'd get?

I actually can't, honestly. I have no idea what that would do in a country like the USA.

Good point. Think Americans would have to be way more egalitarian before mandated voting were even possible

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

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.

But the racist issue is something that is of concern. It is not a coincidence that the heat map of racist activity in the United States looks very similar to the heat map of the vote that fueled Trump's victory. The positive here is that the majority of people who ascribe to a racist ideology is quickly dying. The negative is that the 45% of people who couldn't be bothered to vote are largely millennials and gen Xers who may never become politically engaged, so that will drive voting numbers way down.

The sad reality in the United States is that civics classes are not taken seriously in schools, and when they are they are taught with substantial bias. The core of how government works is completely missing for most students. An example is the majority think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the same things. When asked how many articles there are in the constitution the most common answer is 10, which reflects the amendments included in the Bill of Rights. If people had to pass a basic citizenship exam before being allowed to vote, the number of votes cast would be cut down by 30-40%. Americans are voting on things they don't understand. A full two thirds of Americans cannot name their two sitting Senators from their own State. The system is broken.

[RougeUnderoos]

Speaking of the media, I do have to wonder how Trump's cheerleaders are going to handle his waffling on his major campaign promises.

He has already bailed on the whole "deporting 11 million illegals" thing, and repealing Obamacare, and The Wall, and the ban on Muslims.

The election wasn't even a week ago and he's already changed the script.

I think it's a good thing of course, but I'd be getting a little antsy if I was a supporter.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by New Era

The system is broken.

Slightly OT but insightful into what is breaking the system

Huxley vs Orwell

[photon]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

Slightly OT but insightful into what is breaking the system

Huxley vs Orwell

That doesn't seem to be complete

https://biblioklept.org/2013/06/08/h...he-webcomic-2/

[blankall]

Originally Posted by New Era

But the racist issue is something that is of concern. It is not a coincidence that the heat map of racist activity in the United States looks very similar to the heat map of the vote that fueled Trump's victory. The positive here is that the majority of people who ascribe to a racist ideology is quickly dying. The negative is that the 45% of people who couldn't be bothered to vote are largely millennials and gen Xers who may never become politically engaged, so that will drive voting numbers way down.

The sad reality in the United States is that civics classes are not taken seriously in schools, and when they are they are taught with substantial bias. The core of how government works is completely missing for most students. An example is the majority think the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the same things. When asked how many articles there are in the constitution the most common answer is 10, which reflects the amendments included in the Bill of Rights. If people had to pass a basic citizenship exam before being allowed to vote, the number of votes cast would be cut down by 30-40%. Americans are voting on things they don't understand. A full two thirds of Americans cannot name their two sitting Senators from their own State. The system is broken.

Voter turnout in Canada is low too. It's slightly higher than the USA, but not by all that much. From my experience, Americans have a much better knowledge of their history and civics than Canadians do.

The issue with voting has nothing to do with education. The issue is that the liberal/conservative dichotomy doesn't appeal to anyone but people who blindly follow their party of choice for no reason. The liberal/conservative party system is complete BS. The positions they take don't even follow any real ideology. They've taken a random group of issues and packaged them together and then twisted them to promote their own interests. Then they attack the other side's morals instead of focusing on and discussing real issues. For example, you know full well that the reason the racist heat maps coincide with Trump voters is that the cities vote primarily Democrat, and racists are less likely to live in cities.

I actively choose not to vote. And it's not because I'm not educated in the issues or not engaged politically. It's because the candidates that get chosen year over year are entirely distasteful and the parties they run for don't speak to me in any way. I've voted a couple times and they've been throw away protest votes.

Also, where does everyone get this idea that if their were more voters they wouldn't have voted for Trump. If anything the wide discrepancies between the polls and actual votes suggest the opposite. This suggests that a lot of people held their noses and voted for Trump, as the other option had no appeal. It's likely that many of the undecided non-voters would have done the same. It was basically a choice between the ultra-rich capitalist and the crooked politician who allows the ultra-rich capitalist to exist.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Dogbert

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

Donald Trump jokes don't need your permission to be inserted.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by blankall

Voter turnout in Canada is low too. It's slightly higher than the USA, but not by all that much. From my experience, Americans have a much better knowledge of their history and civics than Canadians do.

The issue with voting has nothing to do with education. The issue is that the liberal/conservative dichotomy doesn't appeal to anyone but people who blindly follow their party of choice for no reason. The liberal/conservative party system is complete BS. The positions they take don't even follow any real ideology. They've taken a random group of issues and packaged them together and then twisted them to promote their own interests. Then they attack the other side's morals instead of focusing on and discussing real issues. For example, you know full well that the reason the racist heat maps coincide with Trump voters is that the cities vote primarily Democrat, and racists are less likely to live in cities.

I actively choose not to vote. And it's not because I'm not educated in the issues or not engaged politically. It's because the candidates that get chosen year over year are entirely distasteful and the parties they run for don't speak to me in any way. I've voted a couple times and they've been throw away protest votes.

Also, where does everyone get this idea that if their were more voters they wouldn't have voted for Trump. If anything the wide discrepancies between the polls and actual votes suggest the opposite. This suggests that a lot of people held their noses and voted for Trump, as the other option had no appeal. It's likely that many of the undecided non-voters would have done the same. It was basically a choice between the ultra-rich capitalist and the crooked politician who allows the ultra-rich capitalist to exist.

If voting was mandated Trump's margin of victory would've been larger.

There is some belief out there that Trump tapped into a previously uncourted portion of the white male vote while many republicans stayed home rather than cast a vote.

A large part of Trump's support was a voter who traditionally does not vote.

It's an interesting political science notation.

[Kavvy]

The electoral college can override the election if they think someone was elected who is unfit for the Presidency and it is mob rule.

I am sure that isn't the legal definition of what/how they can do it, but how a YoutTube video explained it.

Anyway, it would be nearly civil war of they did this, but is an interesting conversation topic.

[photon]

Sounds like Priebus is the choice for White House Chief of Staff. Not going to go over well with his supporters, but is a far more reasonable choice than Bannon

Grassroots conservative group the Tea Party Patriots Citizens Fund warned Mr Trump against appointing a “Washington insider” to be his White House enforcer. “Appointing Reince Priebus (or any other DC establishment insider) would make it more difficult, not less, for President Trump to achieve the change the people voted for,” Jenny Beth Martin, the group’s co-founder of TPPCF, told CNN on Friday. “It's time to drain the swamp — not promote insiders beholden to the Washington establishment who helped create it.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7415441.html

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

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?

Is putting an M or F on your driver's license really a political act? Does it shape your role in society?

We need to look at history to understand identity politics. In the early part of the 20th century, your racial and gender identity prescribed your options in society. This was institutionalised in the law. Women were not allowed by law to do many jobs. Racial minorities were barred from restaurants. The law did not treat everyone equally.

As the century progressed, a series of rights movements transformed the law. Women got the vote and were no longer barred from schools and professions. Martin Luther King gave his famous speech about children being judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin. It reasonated with a liberalizing society that was moving away from traditional social models. Discrimination based on race or gender was prohibited.

Progress was made. There was broad consensus that we should treat everyone as individuals, and not make assumptions about them based on race or gender.

But there was still injustice. Still discrimination of a more subtle and intransigent kind. Still disparities in outcomes.

So in the 80s, leftist academia took the Marxist model of class struggle and applied it to race and gender politics. The goal was no longer for everyone to be treated as individuals, but for women and minorities to organize politically under the banners of their identities and tear down the existing system - a system they characterized as a patriarchal, colonialist, plutocracy.

For 20 years or so, this ideology was confined to academia and the radical left. But in the last decade or so, it seeped into mainstream culture, social media, and mainstream media to become a cornerstone of liberalism. To a progressive today, we are first and foremost our gender and racial identities. The dominant identity (white, male) is oppressive and malignant, therefore virtue is inversely proportional to oppression. And since this is a struggle of culture and narratives, the only way for the virtuous oppressed to overcome the malign oppressors is to elevate speech by some groups and suppress speech by others.

This worked for a while in the first social spheres colonized by the new left - academia, cultural industries, the media. Liberals eager to demonstrate their commitment to fairness and justice set aside traditional liberal values of individualism and free speech. Some had reservations, but bit their tongues out of solidarity against a shared opponent (the Right) or a pliant conformity.

But identity politics activists overplayed their hand. Seeing that they could easily cowe college administrators and the ideologically homegenous enclaves of social media, they employed their weapons of shame and guilt in an ever-wider arena. Compromise was unthinkable. Moderation morally repugnant. They told half the population to check their privilage - shut their mouths. The backlash was inevitable.

So now that identity politics have yielded the poisoned fruit of a Trump presidency, it's up to liberals to find a way to motivate and organize themselves that doesn't rely on an uncompromising dogma formulated in the myopic altitudes of academia. The solution can be found back in our own liberal history of 50 years ago, in the fidelity to individualism and free speech. But tribal identity has a terrible allure. People won't give it up easily.

[Bunk]

Hopefully not Fata, but who do you think will be in the mix for the democrats for 2020?

Obviously a lot of Democratic soul searching to come, and who knows what the political dynamics will be in 3-4 years, but who are the leading possibilities?

Bernie - probably too old. He'll have passed average Male life expectancy in 2020.

Elizabeth Warren - certainly can straddle both progressive and centrist wings.

Cory Booker - might remind people of Obama in style and politics.

Tammy Duckworth - decorated war veteran

Chris Murphy - Connecticut Senator, strong gun control advicate. White guy.

John Hickenlooper - popular governor in a swing state. Fun name. Another white dude.

Some less congenital choices:

Oprah Winfrey - hey, stranger things

Kanye - again...

Michelle Obama - Very unlikely, but she is basically the anti-Trump

Michael Moore - Midwest factor

An actor - say Tom Hanks, Leonardo DeCaprio.

[djsFlames]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Speaking of the media, I do have to wonder how Trump's cheerleaders are going to handle his waffling on his major campaign promises.

He has already bailed on the whole "deporting 11 million illegals" thing, and repealing Obamacare, and The Wall, and the ban on Muslims.

The election wasn't even a week ago and he's already changed the script.

I think it's a good thing of course, but I'd be getting a little antsy if I was a supporter.

I think a lot of what he was saying was to gather a following. I said it after noting that his victory speech contained none of his previous hate rhetoric he was spewing before. Campaigning Trump is different from President Trump. A lot of it was a means to winning the election. In reality his main concern by far is economy, as that is the only area he actually knows his way around in. I think he realized he's not going to #### with the rest, because he wouldn't know how to actually go about carrying out those things in reality. Then again I'm not sure if Trump actually believed he would get to where he is, so it was easier to promise outlandish things when it felt like a long shot. Now that he's actually made it, he probably realizes a number of those things were a bit too ambitious. If he lets the controversial parts of his policy be, then it's good for everyone.

[photon]

Confirmed, Priebus is chief of staff. But Bannon is chief strategist and senior counselor, so he'll still have Trump's ear it seems.

On one hand the establishment politician who's close to Ryan and McConnell, on the other hand the wingnut who's dedicated the past few years of his life to destroying Ryan who he sees as a secret liberal and part of the secret global cabal.

I'm sure meetings will be fun.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...ategist-231304

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by photon

Confirmed, Priebus is chief of staff. But Bannon is chief strategist and senior counselor, so he'll still have Trump's ear it seems.

On one hand the establishment politician who's close to Ryan and McConnell, on the other hand the wingnut who's dedicated the past few years of his life to destroying Ryan who he sees as a secret liberal and part of the secret global cabal.

I'm sure meetings will be fun.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/1...ategist-231304

This will be a power struggle at the top. Priebus outranks Bannon, but Bannon will undermine him at every turn, I predict.