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

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Yeah this is what bothers me. You have actors at the Golden Globes speaking out. Where was that speech pre-election? May have helped the cause 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.

Are you seriously asking why no one criticized Trump prior to the election? Did you miss the last year?

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

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?

OK, we'll keep going with this I guess!

The original post was that Trump spoke about giving the people the country back. Turd pointed out that he had lost the popular vote. Then he got jumped on.

To me, the initial observation by Turd was spot on. Saying a phrase like 'giving the people the country back' implies that he got elected to make changes that the majority want. However in this case, he was elected by the minority. So it was funny.

Regardless of my qualms with Trump and his awfulness as a human being, in this case, the beef is actually with the electoral college. It is antiquated and should be abolished immediately.

I guess the shortest way to say it is that I think Trump lacks the mandate to make statements like the original one quoted. He lacks that mandate because he won only because the electoral college is stupid. That doesn't imply that he shouldn't be president, just that the rules to become president are broken.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Are you seriously asking why no one criticized Trump prior to the election? Did you miss the last year?

Hollywood was out in force for Hilary

[Izzle]

So disingenuous to say that no one protested before the election.

If anything, the James Comey fiasco had a more tangible impact on the swing voter's minds. Besides, these protests are likely only occurring in blue states. Probably because the EC deemed votes from the flyover states to carry more weight.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dobbles

OK, we'll keep going with this I guess!

The original post was that Trump spoke about giving the people the country back. Turd pointed out that he had lost the popular vote. Then he got jumped on.

To me, the initial observation by Turd was spot on. Saying a phrase like 'giving the people the country back' implies that he got elected to make changes that the majority want. However in this case, he was elected by the minority. So it was funny.

Regardless of my qualms with Trump and his awfulness as a human being, in this case, the beef is actually with the electoral college. It is antiquated and should be abolished immediately.

I guess the shortest way to say it is that I think Trump lacks the mandate to make statements like the original one quoted. He lacks that mandate because he won only because the electoral college is stupid. That doesn't imply that he shouldn't be president, just that the rules to become president are broken.

So and not to turn this into a Trudeau thing. But when Justin started to use the phrase "Canada's Back" after he got elected, he lacked the mandate to say that because he was elected with less then the popular vote.

I'm not understanding the logic of what you guys are saying because under their system of election he can make Statements like that because he was elected president.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Are you seriously asking why no one criticized Trump prior to the election? Did you miss the last year?

That's the media and it's not like Hillary didn't receiver her share of criticism. I'm talking about voters. Doesn't change the fact that all these people that feel so strongly about Trump now weren't making that known pre-election. The fact is that there was a false sense that Hilary had it in the bag and that's probably why we are at today. All we heard from celebrities is that plenty said they would move to Canada which shows you how seriously they were taking Trumps chances because none of them are moving to Canada.

[Street Pharmacist]

Fivethirtyeight's analysis using data (instead of narratives) clearly demonstrates she lost mainly because she was unlikeable, plus unreasonable coverage of the email junk (including Comey's letter), and lastly racism.

[dobbles]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

So and not to turn this into a Trudeau thing. But when Justin started to use the phrase "Canada's Back" after he got elected, he lacked the mandate to say that because he was elected with less then the popular vote.

I'm not understanding the logic of what you guys are saying because under their system of election he can make Statements like that because he was elected president.

Once again, I have no knowledge of your situation, and maybe I should be a bit more clear in my wording to account for other situations, but I am mostly referencing the fact that Trump got less votes than Clinton, not the fact that he didn't hit 50%. In our stupid 2 party system its a much more black and white way of looking at things so I didn't account for the nuance of your system having more parties.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

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.

I think that there's an important point here. I believe that in a lot of ways, Hillary lost because of the Hollywood and other elites, and when she was viewed as inbed with these celbrities and her attack on people that weren't with her as deplorable she came across as entitled and out of touch. when combined with a voter base that really seemed ready for a protest vote she lost.

Personally if I was running for public office, I'd be telling Matt Damon and Susan Saranden and Matt Damon and all the others to shut the Fork up until after the election.

[station]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

True. Those checks and balances should still work but it's doubtful in the era of hyper-partisan politics.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

This election may have taught the GOP that there might not be political repercussions for a hyper-partisan or even unpopular agenda. (See Obama SCOTUS nomination). And if they push the right populist buttons they can overcome unpopular laws and get people to vote against their own self-interest.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Maybe but I just don't know how much of a priority that is for the bulk of the GOP that is not in the nationalist camp. These people are mostly funded by powerful people who benefit from said trade agreements. There is definitely going to be a furthering of the war between the moderate Republicans and the Tea Partiers and much of this depends on who emerges.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Sure, I agree that conversation needs to happen. I'm just not sure Russia-friendly, Twitter ranting Trump is the guy who is going to get NATO allies peacefully on board with a new plan. American isolationism is just going to lead to military proliferation elsewhere.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

I don't actually think any state will leave. I just mean the chatter about it will go mainstream. Even to the state senate and governor level.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

That's the media and it's not like Hillary didn't receiver her share of criticism. I'm talking about voters. Doesn't change the fact that all these people that feel so strongly about Trump now weren't making that known pre-election. The fact is that there was a false sense that Hilary had it in the bag and that's probably why we are at today. All we heard from celebrities is that plenty said they would move to Canada which shows you how seriously they were taking Trumps chances because none of them are moving to Canada.

Anti-Trumpers weren't making it known beforehand? That is a special rock you were under...

[Nsd1]

Poor Biden, didn't even get a helicopter ride.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dobbles

Once again, I have no knowledge of your situation, and maybe I should be a bit more clear in my wording to account for other situations, but I am mostly referencing the fact that Trump got less votes than Clinton, not the fact that he didn't hit 50%. In our stupid 2 party system its a much more black and white way of looking at things so I didn't account for the nuance of your system having more parties.

Great and again the 50% doesn't matter, he's the president under law and because of that he can set the mandate. He might have gotten less votes then Hillary but clearly Hillary ran a bad and pretty arrogant campaign and turned off the vote major states. But as President Trump doesn't have to worry about Mandates he doesn't have to worry about the popular vote and he can pretty much say that he has the ability and power given to him because of the last election results to say things like I'm giving America back to the people.

[jeffporfirio]

I look forward to a new NATO'ish alliance between Trump, Putin and Kim Jong Un.

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Fivethirtyeight's analysis using data (instead of narratives) clearly demonstrates she lost mainly because she was unlikeable, plus unreasonable coverage of the email junk (including Comey's letter), and lastly racism.

The narrative they've created is that she lost because celebrities talk too much and people wanted to protest. The reality is states mostly voted as they always do except a few that flipped red when Trump's populist message struck a chord with the poorly educated white voter. The protest vote piece is vastly overblown.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that there's an important point here. I believe that in a lot of ways, Hillary lost because of the Hollywood and other elites, and when she was viewed as inbed with these celbrities and her attack on people that weren't with her as deplorable she came across as entitled and out of touch. when combined with a voter base that really seemed ready for a protest vote she lost.

Personally if I was running for public office, I'd be telling Matt Damon and Susan Saranden and Matt Damon and all the others to shut the Fork up until after the election.

Absolutely. You have Hillary being propped up by celebrities that have absolutely nothing in common with the average person and then the alternative which is a controversial figure that's not being supported by celebrities but he's promising to make America better by creating jobs and bringing back manufacturing in the US. Really it's not surprising how things ended up. A lot of Americans turned flipped the bird to Hollywood.

[TurdFerguson]

Originally Posted by dobbles

OK, we'll keep going with this I guess!

The original post was that Trump spoke about giving the people the country back. Turd pointed out that he had lost the popular vote. Then he got jumped on.

To me, the initial observation by Turd was spot on. Saying a phrase like 'giving the people the country back' implies that he got elected to make changes that the majority want. However in this case, he was elected by the minority. So it was funny.

Regardless of my qualms with Trump and his awfulness as a human being, in this case, the beef is actually with the electoral college. It is antiquated and should be abolished immediately.

I guess the shortest way to say it is that I think Trump lacks the mandate to make statements like the original one quoted. He lacks that mandate because he won only because the electoral college is stupid. That doesn't imply that he shouldn't be president, just that the rules to become president are broken.

That was my thinking. I wasn't commenting about the election process, just that it made me laugh a bit when I heard him talking about giving the power back to the people, the majority of which didn't vote to have him make that decision anyway.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Izzle

So disingenuous to say that no one protested before the election.

If anything, the James Comey fiasco had a more tangible impact on the swing voter's minds. Besides, these protests are likely only occurring in blue states. Probably because the EC deemed votes from the flyover states to carry more weight.

Van Jones did a documentary for CNN interviewing voters about why they voted the way they did. Overall, there was no one tidy explanation for the Trump victory. He did find that in the Rust Belt, voters there felt like Trump was the only one that listened to them, and that they were ignored by Clinton.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Take this with a grain of scepticism...but if there was ever a strain of Christianity that suits Donald...

http://www.cracked.com/blog/trumps-b...n-scientology/

[La Flames Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that there's an important point here. I believe that in a lot of ways, Hillary lost because of the Hollywood and other elites, and when she was viewed as inbed with these celbrities and her attack on people that weren't with her as deplorable she came across as entitled and out of touch. when combined with a voter base that really seemed ready for a protest vote she lost.

Personally if I was running for public office, I'd be telling Matt Damon and Susan Saranden and Matt Damon and all the others to shut the Fork up until after the election.

Hollywood isn't even close to why she wasn't elected. Obama had all the same people stumping for him and still won two terms. People didn't like Hillary, and there was anger at the DNC trying to block Bernie and make sure Clinton was the candidate.

"Hollywood" doesn't have the power over people you think it does.