Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: What a time to be alive! Hopefully Hillary is sharpening an old toothbrush in preparation for prison. (wishful thinking of course)
I won't be surprised if all the "charges" suddenly vanished as absolutely nothing is found, and the media quietly not talking about this so that it gets forgotten in the Abyss of History.
Iron_Captain wrote: I actually really liked Trump's victory speech. Was anyone else postively surprised by that?
.
Yes. And that in itself is one of the reasons for the broad market recovery currently underway. His ability to be magnanimous in victory, pivoting to the center, presenting himself as a 'uniter' bodes well.
So, wanting secure, sovereign borders, and taking measures to prevent anymore Orlandos and San Bernidinos is "preaching hate"?
Sorry, amigo. The world isn't all sunshine and rainbows. Fundamentalist Islam is going full tilt, European nations are having internal issues due to an immigration crisis, and Mexico is in the middle of a drug war that's been slowly spilling over the border. People understand that, and Trump played that to win. Whether or not the status quo will change remains to be seen. I have my doubts anything will, but I could be wrong.
In the middle of? Mexico has been having a drug war since the 70's, it's always been leaking into the US, mainly San Antonio. European nations are having internal issues because disenfranchised Muslims are joining with groups like ISIS because they feel a sense of belonging, especially in a post-9/11 world. Is Islam really a hateful religion, or are we reaching a boiling point where people are trying to adjust and coexist in multi-cultural nations and clashing is occurring?
I really hope Trump "makes America great again", but the man's a flat out racist. Saying anything otherwise is asinine.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
A Town Called Malus wrote: One of the San Bernadino shooters was born in the USA, as was the guy who carried out the Orlando shooting.
If you want to take measures to stop those things from happening, then figure out why US citizens are turning weapons on their fellow countrymen. Why are they susceptible to radicalisation?
Cracking down on a community with harsh policing and scapegoating will not stop young people from deciding to fight back against a society which they perceive as their enemy. If anything it will increase the proportion who retaliate to their perceived persecution.
Or several straight, white, Christian shooters? Nah, it's easier to scapegoat and police an entire minority than face bigger issues like mental stability and why people feel the need to resort to violence.
Mexico has always had trouble with illegal activities and violence between criminal cartels, true. And the border has always been a problem area since the 19th Century (if not before)
But the current, ultra-violent phase of the Mexican drug war didn't start in the 1970's. It started in the 1990s, with the decline of Columbia's big cocaine cartels. The Mexican middlemen simply stepped in and filled the void. And in the last ten years, it's gotten progressively worse, with the cartels arming themselves with full-on military hardware, and getting powerful enough to take on the damned Mexican Federal Army and Navy. That takes it beyond the traditional drug smuggling and gang problems traditionally seen in areas close to the border.
The problem in Europe isn't due solely to any desire "to belong". The issue is you have a large number of fighting-age males fleeing from warzones, many leaving their families behind. Fighting age males from a culture that doesn't share the secular and progressive values of most of Europe. They, and those that did come with their families, are not "immigrants" or "refugees". They won't settle in the nearest safe country. They want to go to Germany, Sweden, the United Kingdom, etc. where the social welfare payouts are generous and the bureaucrats aren't picky about who gets the "help". In other words, it's an invasion of "migrants" looking for freebies, supported by politicians and journalists who have the luxury of living in gated communities, can hire security (or are provided such by the taxpayers), and don't have to worry about sexual assault, violence, or their neighborhood becoming "culturally enriched" with self-styled "sharia patrols" and gangs of young migrant punks who don't even fear the police, whom they hold in contempt.
Multiculturalism only works if the cultures are similar enough where some amount of integration, and cultural contribution to the host society, is possible. Even then, as the American experience shows, you still have problems. But those issues can be overcome (or lessened in severity) in that case. The more recent flood from Islamic-dominated countries, on the other hand, is too much of a hurdle to cross, because Western European governments won't get their heads out of their asses, and are out of touch with reality. Fortunately, some are taking measures to get a handle on the situation. I just hope it isn't too late for them. And, as an American, I cannot abide by the same happening here. We have enough problems with illegal immigration from a chaotic Mexico, and a crime problem among our own citizenry, to be importing more problems.
Fundamentalist Islam is a hateful and violent ideology, with the religious aspects being "window dressing". The problem is that the West has been lulled into a false sense of security because of the examples set by "moderates" (i.e. Muslim who only pay lip service to Islam, or pick the parts to live by that they like). All without knowing that in the purest expression of Seventh Century Islam (which is the tune modern fundies dance to), these people are considered "apostates", and only worthy of the executioner's noose if they don't return to the "true" teachings of the Prophet. They are considered no better than the "kuffar", or unbelievers.
As for our domestic "white, straight, Christian males" who go on killing sprees, that's a matter for domestic policing, and a symptom of the sad state of mental health regulations in this country. In the late 1960's and early 1970's, liberalization of the laws and regulations regarding commitment opened the doors of mental health facilities and asylums across the United States, with people who were dire need of treatment and confinement let loose onto the streets. And the same has prevented people who have a need for involuntary commitment from getting the help they need and deserve. Combined with the continued stigma attached to mental illness and commitment, it's no wonder we have crazies shooting up places, not to mention the explosion of serial murder that took place in the 1970's and 1980's.
So, while I can respect your point of view, I don't agree with iit in it's entirety. If that makes me a racist xenophobe, then so be it. I don't see Trump's positions of immigration as being "racist". Politically incorrect? Perhaps. But not racist or xenophobic. Growing up in the 70's and early 80's under the shadow of Mutually Assured Destruction, and having served in the United States Army, deployed in Germany in the 1980's, staring at the Fulda Gap wondering if (or when) the "Russkies" were going to invade, I know what real xenophobia is. And Trump doesn't have it (at least publicly).
Frazzled wrote: On the other hand Travis and Bastrop counties both admitted last week that cartels were actively operating in their counties. They had to because of the bodies found on the side of the road.
We need secure borders, and the US just voted to secure its borders. FINALLY.
Yes, it voted to secure its borders based on a vague promise of some sort of undefined physical barrier (which have been shown to be extremely expensive, easily defeatable by elements that wish to do so, and extremely controversial in the long run, in multiple real world instances) with zero details on how it will be built and maintained, and the promise this will all be done on the dime of a foreign government.
In other words, they voted for something that sounded like what they wanted, but is far more fairy tale and pixie dust than reality. We have zero real details on what any sorts of actual measures will be taken, how they will be implemented, and where the resources will come from.
horsegak. There is already a wall on a large portion. They voted for security and ending the open borders. Its not vague, you just don't like it.
We'll see if anything actually happens. I expect we'll see some budget shuffling and maybe a nice bump to the border patrol, but probably no fortress america wall any time soon
.Agreed.
worked for the Romans.
Lets ask the Iroquois what happens when you don't have good border control.
Lets ask China how effective a massive wall was at keeping out foreign invaders.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
I think that's a bit much. If you're telling me the DNC didn't try to swindle America by rigging the primaries against Bernie, I think you're full of it. The DNC bet on the wrong horse, no matter how much "propaganda" the Republicans put out.
Even if it was Bernie, the Republican Media Machine would have worked the same. I'm not even sure Bernie would have been able to stand against all of that gakstorm like Hillary faced it.
Face the truth; there were many more topics on how bad Hillary was and the so called "Mail Scandal" than about the true personna of Trump. The fact only one video of him talking about ugly things between episodes of "The Apprentice" leaked tells a lot of how Trump works against people not going his way.
He's all smiles because he won. But I'm pretty sure there will be retribution against those who tried to make him fall.
That people actually believe he will be honest is beyond me. All America showed to the world today is that you can tell enormous, blatant lies and horrible things only Hitler and Mussolini would say without blinking and still be able to win the election. Not even closely, but actually with a nice margin.
The most hillarious thing is that some people actually saying they voted for him because they are tired of being played by the establishment. Well, we'll see in four years how they feel, when they will realize they were played by a shady businessman.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/09 17:28:32
Buzzsaw wrote: This is a dangerously misguided idea, comparing shooters motivated by metal illness to shooters that believe, with excellent reasoning, that their faith endorses certain kinds of violent acts.
Actually, from my point of view, at this stage religions are little more than glorified mental illnesses. They served their purpose when the human knowledge about the world and the universe we live in was just abysmally limited, and should have gone away a long time ago by now.
I'd hate to hijack this thread with such a potentially inflamatory comment so I'd add that all in all I don't think shooting sprees by religious fanatics should be treated any different from shooting sprees by any other kind of disturbed individuals. The IMO comes from how easily available are certain kinds of incredibly dangerous weapons.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
He's been a "huge supporter of 2A rights" since right about the time he started running. He's a new york billionaire through and through. I'd be shocked if we see XO import bans removed that he can end at the stroke of a pen, I'd eat a plate of Meekrob if anything actually changed with the NFA. Last time Republicans had control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, they did nothing on these fronts even with a supermajority, except stand by and allow the federal AWB to end, an act of inaction rather than action.
Citizenship: I predict a 180 at this point when he realizes that he can't "round them up" - an accelerated path to citizenship or something of the sort, solidifying their vote in 2020.
People have predicted similar things with leaders who ran on similar rhetoric in other countries and been...profoundly disappointed. Let us hope you are correct
Obamacare: Kill it...kill it with fire.
And replace it with what? The policy alternatives from the Republicans and Trump are either nonexistent or are appear even less workable. The ACA has huge issues, but it cant just be "killed" either.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
I think that's a bit much. If you're telling me the DNC didn't try to swindle America by rigging the primaries against Bernie, I think you're full of it. The DNC bet on the wrong horse, no matter how much "propaganda" the Republicans put out.
Even if it was Bernie, the Republican Media Machine would have worked the same. I'm not even sure Bernie would have been able to stand against all of that gakstorm like Hillary faced it.
Face the truth; there were many more topics on how bad Hillary was and the so called "Mail Scandal" than about the true personna of Trump. The fact only one video of him talking about ugly things between episodes of "The Apprentice" leaked tells a lot of how Trump works against people not going his way.
He's all smiles because he won. But I'm pretty sure there will be retribution against those who tried to make him fall.
That people actually believe he will be honest is beyond me. All America showed to the world today is that you can tell enormous, blatant lies and horrible things only Hitler and Mussolini would say without blinking and still be able to win the election. Not even closely, but actually with a nice margin.
The most hillarious thing is that some people actually saying they voted for him because they are tired of being played by the establishment. Well, we'll see in four years how they feel, when they will realize they were played by a shady businessman.
I dont know did Berns have anything for the media to latch onto like a leach?
Primary reason i feel hills did so poorly was all the leaks and people getting sick of her corrupt gak.
What a time to be alive! Hopefully Hillary is sharpening an old toothbrush in preparation for prison. (wishful thinking of course)
A few of his policies will be implementable, and the sillier ones (the wall, for example) will not. I think we'll end up in a good position.
Immigration: It's not about vetting the Muslim immigrants coming in through traditional channels - rather, it's about not bringing hordes of migrants into this country. Hillary wanted over half a million of them in her first term and cited Merkel as a great figure. No thanks, Hilldog.
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
Citizenship: I predict a 180 at this point when he realizes that he can't "round them up" - an accelerated path to citizenship or something of the sort, solidifying their vote in 2020.
Obamacare: Kill it...kill it with fire.
These are the issues that are important for me. I read an analysis by a staunch Dem friend of mine who predicted this over a year ago. His thesis was essentially that Trump will be elected simply because the Left has bullied conservatives and moderates (especially White moderates) to the point where it's impossible to admit in public that you're voting for Trump. I've seen tons of Trump signs defaced in this area - not a single Hillary sign touched. The Left can blame themselves for this, but they should really be celebrating, because we're going to make America great again.
Heh, well said, have an exalt! Some specific points that I could see coming and would welcome;
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
Ironically many gun control advocates have proposed exactly what many 2nd A folks would welcome: treating gun carry licenses like driver's licenses. National reciprocity, the vacating of idiosyncratic local rules, a 50 state solution.
Immigration: It's not about vetting the Muslim immigrants coming in through traditional channels - rather, it's about not bringing hordes of migrants into this country. Hillary wanted over half a million of them in her first term and cited Merkel as a great figure. No thanks, Hilldog.
Enforcement of immigration law is one of the great essentials, above and beyond the questions of Middle East refugees, for achieving much of the prosperity agenda. Like the legalization of illegals, simply making it clear that the laws will be enforced will have, I think history shows, a salutary effect on the problem.
Yep. The "Anti-Hillary" movement was way bigger than the "Pro-Trump"
The medias didn't help. And of course, Whembly did a great job to give a perfect picture of what happened at a national state here on this forum, by reporting all of their Right Wing propaganda like a good Republican supporter.
I think that's a bit much. If you're telling me the DNC didn't try to swindle America by rigging the primaries against Bernie, I think you're full of it. The DNC bet on the wrong horse, no matter how much "propaganda" the Republicans put out.
I think that's a bit much. If you're telling me the DNC didn't try to swindle America by rigging the primaries against Bernie, I think you're full of it. The DNC bet on the wrong horse, no matter how much "propaganda" the Republicans put out.
Even if it was Bernie, the Republican Media Machine would have worked the same. I'm not even sure Bernie would have been able to stand against all of that gakstorm like Hillary faced it.
Face the truth; there were many more topics on how bad Hillary was and the so called "Mail Scandal" than about the true personna of Trump. The fact only one video of him talking about ugly things between episodes of "The Apprentice" leaked tells a lot of how Trump works against people not going his way.
I think you're underestimating the "Anti-Hillary" crowd. In my personal life alone, 70% of the people who voted for Trump were "Anti-Hillary", not "Pro-Trump". I think Bernie would have fared much better due to the lack of an email scandal and a unified DNC, rather than the DNC trying to force Bernie voters to vote for Hillary.
He's all smiles because he won. But I'm pretty sure there will be retribution against those who tried to make him fall.
That people actually believe he will be honest is beyond me. All America showed to the world today is that you can tell enormous, blatant lies and horrible things only Hitler and Mussolini would say without blinking and still be able to win the election. Not even closely, but actually with a nice margin.
The most hillarious thing is that some people actually saying they voted for him because they are tired of being played by the establishment. Well, we'll see in four years how they feel, when they will realize they were played by a shady businessman.
Absolutely. I agree with your second part whole-heartedly, but that's not the Republic Machine. That's a smart charismatic businessman appealing to the fear, distrust, and frustration of millions of voters.
I think he's an awful person, but damnit if he didn't play the whole nation.
Iron_Captain wrote: I actually really liked Trump's victory speech. Was anyone else postively surprised by that?
I thought he was going to gloat about his victory and spew some more crazy stuff, but he actually said really nice things.
Also, the kid in the background trying to not fall asleep was hilarious.
The last two months or so, he became teleprompter savvy. Basically, he's reading a script.
Iron_Captain wrote:I actually really liked Trump's victory speech. Was anyone else postively surprised by that?
I thought he was going to gloat about his victory and spew some more crazy stuff, but he actually said really nice things.
Also, the kid in the background trying to not fall asleep was hilarious.
I was also surprised with his graciousness in victory.
It reminded me of when a pair participants of some combat sport (primarily Boxers or MMA fighters) has a long buildup to a fight. Talking trash all the way and getting increasingly more vicious. Then once the fight is done it's hugs and respect.
Now, I have a hard time seeing "Humble-Trump" lasting too long, but one night is still one night longer than I expected
Co'tor Shas wrote: So she won tge popular but lost the EC? It's crazy that this has happened twice in the last two decades. You'd almost think that it's ans outated system thwt no longer works...
That's how federalism works.
You could mitigate the chance of it happening by introducing some Leveling seats a.k.k Adjustment seats. A group of electors distributed with the whole nation as one district, in order for the allocation of electors to match the popular vote. Such systems exist in Scandinavia (and I believe in Germany) in order to retain local representation, but still having the overall result conform with the overall popular votes. In Norway recently though, despite the Adjustment seats, the winning coalition got more seats with slightly less votes.
Good luck on making any changes to the American voting system though. As I understand, there's a metric f-ton of red tape and qualified majorities (unanimous decision by all states even?) needed.
All that presupposes that the idea that the election results have to reflect the popular vote is the correct and necessary idea. We don't need that reform because the popular vote and the electoral vote don't need to match. What you're basically arguing for is that we need to award bonus electoral points for margin of victory which is completely unnecessary. Hillary won California, she got all their electoral votes, whether she won by one vote or one million doesn't matter. More populous states have more electoral votes the system is already weighted in the favor of populous states we don't need to increase that favoritism even more. There are states where generations of people have never seen a presidential candidate in person because the states don't have enough electoral votes to be an important swing state, we don't need to devalue those states even further. Most often the candidate that wins the electoral vote will also win the popular vote by virtue of winning a lot of states, on some occasions a candidate will win the electoral college without winning the or popular vote based on the margin of victory in some states and that's ok, it doesn't change the outcome in states and it doesn't change the fact that populous states have more electoral importance than sparsely populated states. There is no problem to fix.
It would be a way of ensuing votes across the election is more evenly weighted.
How is the system weighted in favour of the populous states when they receive proportionally less electors per capita? If anything it's the other way around.
California for example has roughly one elector per 160k votes and Texas only one elector per over 200k votes. Meanwhile Alaska is only around 80k voters per elector and Hawaii an elecor per 100k voters.
We don't vote nationally we vote by state. More populous states have more electoral votes than less populous states. The electoral college doesn't award electors based on raw population it awards electors to states based on the number of congressional representatives per state. The number of congressional representatives per state is a adjusted every 10 years when the national census is taken. Electoral votes are then adjusted to reflect any changes in congressional representation. The proportional weight of California over Wyoming is the same on election day as it is on any given day in Congress and the running of the federal govt. You're advocating that we need to award extra weight to California over Wyoming on election night because for some reason California should have a greater voice on election night than it does in regular federal governance. There's no compelling reason for that. Populous states are treated fairly on election night just as they are treated fairly in Congress.
The vote is state-by state indeed. But the President is given a mandate over the entire nation, so I do believe it would be better to have the vote be at least partly nationally based.
Well, that's kinda my point. I disagree that the voters in populous states are treated fairly since they don't get the same representation per capita as less populous states. Also having no electors distributed according to the popular vote leads to the disproportional importance of those votes cast in the swing-states.
I guess there's not much point in keeping this discussion going though as it was just an off-hand remark from my part. I know it'll probably never be changed in my lifetime, and It's not like I can vote in the US elections anyway.
NuggzTheNinja wrote: What a time to be alive! Hopefully Hillary is sharpening an old toothbrush in preparation for prison. (wishful thinking of course)
I won't be surprised if all the "charges" suddenly vanished as absolutely nothing is found, and the media quietly not talking about this so that it gets forgotten in the Abyss of History.
Well, given that Comey has laid out a prima facia case that Hillary is guilty of a huge number of Federal Regulation violations, your opinion seems... unfounded, shall we say? Now, whether it is in the interest of the country that Hillary dies in prison is another matter.
Personally I think a suspended sentence (ala Petreyus) and a massive fine would probably suffice, but some things, like the destruction of documents under subpoena? That's something that has to be dealt with for the sake of the Rule of Law.
Iron_Captain wrote: I actually really liked Trump's victory speech. Was anyone else postively surprised by that?
I thought he was going to gloat about his victory and spew some more crazy stuff, but he actually said really nice things.
Also, the kid in the background trying to not fall asleep was hilarious.
The last two months or so, he became teleprompter savvy. Basically, he's reading a script.
Heh, in this as in so many parts of his campaign, Trump was heir to Obama. The irony is rich and buttery.
oldravenman3025 wrote: I know what real xenophobia is. And Trump doesn't have it (at least publicly).
Not to keep quoting the last sentence of other peoples' stuff, but yeah "What Trump represents" is another red herring that was tossed out over the past year by both parties [of the establishment] and it's likely repudiation of this which the general voter tapped into and that the media and polling outlets mistakenly discounted.
His behaviors are not that bad, and by the standards of one of the financial elite, he actually seems to be a pretty upright citizen. We have an audio clip about grabbing women (and his personal life has been tumultuous but we're comparing him to Bill Clinton, c'mon...) and some allegations about... stuff? ... from the 90s and earlier.
Now juxtapose that with Elizabeth Warren's endorsement of Hillary; Liz has been on how many oversight panels berating Hillary's donor list with her uniquely cadenced lecturing, but she's okay with the embodiment Special Interest policy? Okay.
Trump is human so he's far from perfect, but at the end of the day his behavioral history doesn't look any worse than most peoples' grandpa and probably compares favorably to the political field.
I dont know did Berns have anything for the media to latch onto like a leach?
Oh, I trust the Republicans for that. They would have found something - or if they don't, they just made something up. And then they would have spammed the Media with these "shocking news" so much to inspire doubt. When you tell a big enough lie, people will end believing it. That's the lesson we learned during this campaign.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 17:41:12
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
He's been a "huge supporter of 2A rights" since right about the time he started running. He's a new york billionaire through and through. I'd be shocked if we see XO import bans removed that he can end at the stroke of a pen, I'd eat a plate of Meekrob if anything actually changed with the NFA. Last time Republicans had control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, they did nothing on these fronts even with a supermajority, except stand by and allow the federal AWB to end, an act of inaction rather than action.
Yeah, this one seriously boggles my mind.
His appeal to gun owners was so ridiculously pandering it made my head hurt. He doesn't love us gun owners; he holds us in contempt because he knows so many of us will blindly follow if he hits just a few of the correct code words. He was completely for AWBs until he realized he could denounce them and get votes.
People loved to give Clinton gak for flip flopping but, as is the case in hyper-partisanship, turn a blind eye to the most egregious cases on their side of the aisle.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
I dont know did Berns have anything for the media to latch onto like a leach?
Oh, I trust the Republicans for that. They would have found something - or if they don't, they just made something up. And then they would have spammed the Media with these "shocking news" so much to inspire doubt.
That's how they work and how they won.
Well, that's a well founded and nuanced view of a reality. Not our reality, but I'm sure it's reality somewhere...
Absolutely. I agree with your second part whole-heartedly, but that's not the Republic Machine. That's a smart charismatic businessman appealing to the fear, distrust, and frustration of millions of voters.
I think he's an awful person, but damnit if he didn't play the whole nation.
You are aware that he was the Republican Party's candidate, right? And that all tools of the Republican Party were used so that he could win, right? So, yes, the Republican are totally responsible of this result.
Saying it's just Trump that "played the whole nation" is wrong. Trump alone, without all of his advisors and the Republican Media Machine would have been nothing.
I dont know did Berns have anything for the media to latch onto like a leach?
Oh, I trust the Republicans for that. They would have found something - or if they don't, they just made something up. And then they would have spammed the Media with these "shocking news" so much to inspire doubt. When you tell a big enough lie, people will end believing it. That's the lesson we learned during this campaign.
I feel like it wouldnt of been so bad. media, not just the republican side will start calling names and bs a bunch of bs pedantic nonsense from things some one said years ago when they have nothing tangible to latch onto.
Hillary was a mistake. emails, hacks, media corruption and R party rigging. soo much rocket fuel ready to go. without that it would of been a bog standard venom throwing match like every election. then again trump did have some one putin him on
I think you're underestimating the "Anti-Hillary" crowd. In my personal life alone, 70% of the people who voted for Trump were "Anti-Hillary", not "Pro-Trump". I think Bernie would have fared much better due to the lack of an email scandal and a unified DNC, rather than the DNC trying to force Bernie voters to vote for Hillary.
Imagine Kaine running without all the Clinton baggage. Imagine if Julian Castro had run.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Well, that's a well founded and nuanced view of a reality. Not our reality, but I'm sure it's reality somewhere...
It's indeed not a Right Wing reality, I admit it.
Still, Red Team won, and you will note both Obama and Hillary actually congratulate Trump for his victory. No call for rigged election, no snob, just playing fair.
Bet you already forgot how Trump reacted when it was a bit bad for him not so long ago?
oldravenman3025 wrote: I know what real xenophobia is. And Trump doesn't have it (at least publicly).
Not to keep quoting the last sentence of other peoples' stuff, but yeah "What Trump represents" is another red herring that was tossed out over the past year by both parties [of the establishment] and it's likely repudiation of this which the general voter tapped into and that the media and polling outlets mistakenly discounted.
His behaviors are not that bad, and by the standards of one of the financial elite, he actually seems to be a pretty upright citizen. We have an audio clip about grabbing women (and his personal life has been tumultuous but we're comparing him to Bill Clinton, c'mon...) and some allegations about... stuff? ... from the 90s and earlier.
Just want to nitpick your last part: He was pretty open about hating blacks in the 70's and 80's, he has lied, sued, and bullied anyone who was in his way, and he's not a great businessman, he's failed several businesses and his "Trump University" is in the middle of a lawsuit for scamming people.
Absolutely. I agree with your second part whole-heartedly, but that's not the Republic Machine. That's a smart charismatic businessman appealing to the fear, distrust, and frustration of millions of voters.
I think he's an awful person, but damnit if he didn't play the whole nation.
You are aware that he was the Republican Party's candidate, right? And that all tools of the Republican Party were used so that he could win, right? So, yes, the Republican are totally responsible of this result.
Saying it's just Trump that "played the whole nation" is wrong. Trump alone, without all of his advisors and the Republican Media Machine would have been nothing.
The Republicans only took Trump when they had no one else. They were clearly against him in the beginning and when he won the Primary.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/09 17:49:57
Gun Control: He's a huge supporter of 2A rights, so I'm looking forward to national carry at the very least. I'm hoping we can get suppressors removed from the NFA as well.
He's been a "huge supporter of 2A rights" since right about the time he started running. He's a new york billionaire through and through. I'd be shocked if we see XO import bans removed that he can end at the stroke of a pen, I'd eat a plate of Meekrob if anything actually changed with the NFA. Last time Republicans had control of the House, Senate, and Presidency, they did nothing on these fronts even with a supermajority, except stand by and allow the federal AWB to end, an act of inaction rather than action.
Yeah, this one seriously boggles my mind.
His appeal to gun owners was so ridiculously pandering it made my head hurt. He doesn't love us gun owners; he holds us in contempt because he knows so many of us will blindly follow if he hits just a few of the correct code words. He was completely for AWBs until he realized he could denounce them and get votes.
People loved to give Clinton gak for flip flopping but, as is the case in hyper-partisanship, turn a blind eye to the most egregious cases on their side of the aisle.
While not wholly unjustified, you miss a critical difference when you call this "flip flopping": a private businessman ought not to be expected to have a nuanced view of issues that have little effect of his business. Personally, I think it likely Trump will be responsive to pressure from 2A folks, but at the least I expect no traction from anti-2A movements.
~1.5k
As I understand, there's a metric f-ton of red tape and qualified majorities (unanimous decision by all states even?) needed.
Just want to nitpick your last part: He was pretty open about hating blacks in the 70's and 80's, he has lied, sued, and bullied anyone who was in his way, and he's not a great businessman, he's failed several businesses and his "Trump University" is in the middle of a lawsuit for scamming people.
