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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
For the most part, they are people who feel that both political parties have failed them miserably.

So, in response to feeling like both parties have failed them, they vote for one of the parties that has failed them. And for a candidate who is an obvious con man using them for personal gain. Makes sense to me...

It seems to me a lot of people were willing to gamble with a junk candidate this election cycle with the hope of getting something better down the track.

I've never really followed American political history to know if it's true, but I did hear some analysts saying that the rust belt which has supported team blue for a long time were feeling neglected, so if they feel neglected they are more likely to take a gamble on a crappy president this time round in the hopes that next cycle the blue team won't be taking their votes for granted. The gamble being hopefully the world still exists by the time the next cycle comes around.

Trump also got fewer votes than Clinton, Obama and Bush.

That shows people disliked him even more than they disliked Clinton.

Anyone who genuinely thought both Clinton and Trump were completely unacceptable could have voted for an independent. The two independents were utterly crushed.

Which brings us back to the point that 60 million people supported Trump.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump also got fewer votes than Clinton, Obama and Bush.

That shows people disliked him even more than they disliked Clinton.

Anyone who genuinely thought both Clinton and Trump were completely unacceptable could have voted for an independent. The two independents were utterly crushed.

Which brings us back to the point that 60 million people supported Trump.

Independents have one critical fault for their hopes to be voted. They have neither R nor D behind them.

 whembly wrote:
Brutal... someone's keeping count.

16 Fake News Stories Reporters Have Run Since Trump Won

To be perfectly blunt, that article is utter gak.

Fake news isn't stuff that later turns out to be wrong. It isn't random tweets by people, especially not when they're just giving an opinion (those hands look photoshopped). It certainly isn't coverage of a developing stories that turns out to not have any real substance behind it, and are dropped when this is shown to be true (like the election hacking theory).

Fake news is when a story is deliberately written as a known piece of fiction. It is writing a story that claims Donald Trump was endorsed by the Pope. Or that a pizza store was at the centre of Clinton sex slave ring.

The difference in these kinds of stories is obvious. The writer blurs the line because he is selling you a political con. He is trying to blur the lines between run of the mill journalism (much of which was quite mediocre, but certainly not dishonest), and fictional stories made up from scratch. Whether he is doing this beacuse he wants to pretend the issue with fake news isn't real (because it would indicate issues with the recent election, which his side won), or whether it's just a generic broadside at the MSM I don't know, but either way it's an utterly crap article.

I hadn't noticed before but look how well Trump's hair blends in with the White House wallpaper :






Remarkable.

'Shopped, I reckon.

Fake news intended to deny Trump's personal courage. He doesn't need cammo.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its like I'm talking to 20 year olds, oh wait, I am...

You will find in life as you get older that often you will have to choose the lesser of two evils.

And you will find as you get more sensible, that jumping about shouting 'eerhmagheerd she is such an evil lady'... doesn't actually make it so. That so many conservatives convinced themselves that Hillary Clinton was such an awful, horrible person speaks very strongly to the absolute derangement in much of modern US conservatism.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its like I'm talking to 20 year olds, oh wait, I am...

You will find in life as you get older that often you will have to choose the lesser of two evils.

And you will find as you get more sensible, that jumping about shouting 'eerhmagheerd she is such an evil lady'... doesn't actually make it so. That so many conservatives convinced themselves that Hillary Clinton was such an awful, horrible person speaks very strongly to the absolute derangement in much of modern US conservatism.

Pretty sure Trump has killed the 'with age comes wisdom' thing by now anyways.

 Frazzled wrote:
You will find in life as you get older that often you will have to choose the lesser of two evils. They believed that Trump was at least slightly better than HRC, with SCOTUS being a BIG factor. They'd rather have a dickbag that would slightly err on their side and give them good SCOTUS picks then Clinton.

You are absolutely correct. Sometimes you have to choose lesser evil. Of course in this election lesser evil was Clinton and not even a close. So may I presume you voted for her?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump also got fewer votes than Clinton, Obama and Bush.

According to the Wikipedia entry Bush got slightly less votes than Trump.

That shows people disliked him even more than they disliked Clinton.

Assuming everyone had equal impetus to vote, but the electoral college system makes it hard to judge.

Anyone who genuinely thought both Clinton and Trump were completely unacceptable could have voted for an independent. The two independents were utterly crushed.

It doesn't seem like a very popular thing to do in America, to vote for an independent. Seems people who actually care just view it as throwing a vote away rather than sending a message.

Which brings us back to the point that 60 million people supported Trump.

But the question remains, how many people support Trump vs how many just voted for him in spite of thinking he's going to be a crap president? I could believe a lot of people voted for him simply because they wanted change and/or were focused on a single issue, knowing Trump might be a short-term change for the worse but hoping for longer term change when the next batch of candidates is put forward.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But the question remains, how many people support Trump vs how many just voted for him in spite of thinking he's going to be a crap president? I could believe a lot of people voted for him simply because they wanted change and/or were focused on a single issue, knowing Trump might be a short-term change for the worse but hoping for longer term change when the next batch of candidates is put forward.

If your actions help Trump you support Trump. Simple as that.

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Its like I'm talking to 20 year olds, oh wait, I am...

You will find in life as you get older that often you will have to choose the lesser of two evils.

And you will find as you get more sensible, that jumping about shouting 'eerhmagheerd she is such an evil lady'... doesn't actually make it so. That so many conservatives convinced themselves that Hillary Clinton was such an awful, horrible person speaks very strongly to the absolute derangement in much of modern US conservatism.

She was.


Just like the rest of them in the D.C. political establishment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
But the question remains, how many people support Trump vs how many just voted for him in spite of thinking he's going to be a crap president? I could believe a lot of people voted for him simply because they wanted change and/or were focused on a single issue, knowing Trump might be a short-term change for the worse but hoping for longer term change when the next batch of candidates is put forward.

This election didn't give us many good choices.


It was the Establishment versus a political wild card. I went with the wild card.


As for the controversy surrounding Trump so far, the fact of the matter is that the (largely discredited in my eyes for ages now) MSM and political opposition (and their useful idiots) are making mountains out of molehills. But I fully expected all of this, considering that the Establishment, historically, doesn't like outsiders upsetting their gravy train, the usual media generated circuses, and the attention span/gullibility of the average modern American voter.


A shake-up was long overdue. Way, way, overdue.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump also got fewer votes than Clinton, Obama and Bush.

That shows people disliked him even more than they disliked Clinton.

Anyone who genuinely thought both Clinton and Trump were completely unacceptable could have voted for an independent. The two independents were utterly crushed.

Which brings us back to the point that 60 million people supported Trump.

Trump got more votes than either Bush. He also got more than Bill Clinton did. As for Obama and Hillary Clinton, well Obama saw historic highs on 08, and frankly, with NY and CA, the dems can expect to win popular votes for quite a while. Since that doesn't win elections, but losing 'safe' states like Clinton lost does lose elections, well, we get Trump. Those states don't flip if folks dislike Trump more than they dislike Clinton.

So are we settled now? Did Trump get support or not?

 Kilkrazy wrote:
So are we settled now? Did Trump get support or not?

He's in the White House, isn't he?


And it appears he still enjoys support from the base that pulled for him.

 whembly wrote:
Al Franken?
https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/647681?unlock=K36E7XFBC11I1KQ7

Spoiler:

Don't knock it... see Trump!

Al Franken's an odd bird. I like him. I don't think I ever even thought about him as a Presidential contender. And I'm at a complete loss as to how he would be taken by conservative-leaning folk.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
If warren is somehow not viable who do you think would be a "viable" candidate, jasper?

While not directed at me, I have a list and I am not a democrat:

1) Joe Biden
2) Jim Webb
3) Tammy Duckworth
4) Cory Booker
5) Michael Bennet
6) Tom Udall
7) Patty Murray
8) Joe Donelly (the anti pence)

Duckworth would be an intriguing nominee. Dare I say she would even have crossover appeal because of being a military hero?

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Anyone who genuinely thought both Clinton and Trump were completely unacceptable could have voted for an independent. The two independents were utterly crushed.

It doesn't seem like a very popular thing to do in America, to vote for an independent. Seems people who actually care just view it as throwing a vote away rather than sending a message.

If you've voting for not-candidate, then most will see a vote to an independent as a wasted vote (it's the same here). If you don't want Hilary, you vote Trump. If you don't want Trump, you vote Hilary.

I'd love to see a breakdown of Trump votes that actually voted *for* Tump, compared to those that voted against Hilary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:

It was the Establishment versus a political wild card. I went with the wild card.

Beyond being politically an economically inept, I don't see how Trump isn't the establishment.

I'll give you wildcard, but to me it looked like you had a choice between the establishment Vs the establishment wild card.

Looks like Sec Ed voting today.

From Melania's lawsuit against the Daily Hate


First lady role is now a "once in a lifetime" opportunity to coin it in.

Classy.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
And it appears he still enjoys support from the base that pulled for him.

Not really since support for his actions are in 30-40%'s and 40% are hoping for impeachment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Herzlos wrote:
Beyond being politically an economically inept, I don't see how Trump isn't the establishment.

I'll give you wildcard, but to me it looked like you had a choice between the establishment Vs the establishment wild card.

Yeah he's been involved with politics and president campaigns for decades. He's as much establishment as other candinates were

30-40% support roughly matches his votes as a proportion of the electorate FWIW.

Is this the new conservative mantra? Trump is awful and I only voted for him because Clinton would have been worse, so it's the Democrats fault he got elected.

 reds8n wrote:

I like how Washington looks disappointed, as if he is thinking "that's why I said no parties..."

 Kilkrazy wrote:
30-40% support roughly matches his votes as a proportion of the electorate FWIW.

Is this the new conservative mantra? Trump is awful and I only voted for him because Clinton would have been worse, so it's the Democrats fault he got elected.

It certainly seems to be. It also allows them to take credit for things which go right (they will claim it was part of the standard GOP manifesto that Trump largely took on with his specific things tacked on) whilst also being able to lay the blame for things which go wrong on Trump alone.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
30-40% support roughly matches his votes as a proportion of the electorate FWIW.

Didn't he get like 48% votes though? If 30-40% americans approve his actions and 48% voted him then whole bunch of people who voted for him then don't support his orders...

Why so much reluctance for people to admit Clinton was a bad candidate?

Put the FBI aside for a second. She was a Wall Street candidate. Whatever idealism she may have once had gave way to 6 figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. She was literally a Wall Street Senator. She's a well known and unapologetic hawk. She ran against our natural American disinclination for dynasties. And she did the most idiotic thing she could...she insulted in harsh terms a huge swath of the citizenry with her "basket of deplorables" "irredeemable" comments. At least Romney made his gaffe in private. Clinton put her disdain for the electorate out there for all to see.

I really wish people would start recognizing that they nominated a dud. You could have picked Bernie, you didn't, and you lost. Time to move on. Let's pick a better candidate next time, FFS

This "support" thing is an unwinnable game of semantics.

I remember how, supposedly, voting independent or not voting at all was somehow actually supporting Trump, which actually meant you were the worst kind of hateful bigot.

 jasper76 wrote:
Why so much reluctance for people to admit Clinton was a bad candidate?

Put the FBI aside for a second. She was a Wall Street candidate. Whatever idealism she may have once had gave way to 6 figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. She was literally a Wall Street Senator. She's a well known and unapologetic hawk. She ran against our natural American disinclination for dynasties. And she did the most idiotic thing she could...she insulted in harsh terms a huge swath of the citizenry with her "basket of deplorables" "irredeemable" comments. At least Romney made his gaffe in private. Clinton put her disdain for the electorate out there for all to see.

I really wish people would start recognizing that they nominated a dud. You could have picked Bernie, you didn't, and you lost. Time to move on. Let's pick a better candidate next time, FFS

I don't recall anyone saying Hilary was a good candidate. But was Trump a better candidate?
Would Hilary have had as interesting first 2 weeks in office?

 jasper76 wrote:
Why so much reluctance for people to admit Clinton was a bad candidate?

Put the FBI aside for a second. She was a Wall Street candidate. Whatever idealism she may have once had gave way to 6 figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. She was literally a Wall Street Senator. She's a well known and unapologetic hawk. She ran against our natural American disinclination for dynasties. And she did the most idiotic thing she could...she insulted in harsh terms a huge swath of the citizenry with her "basket of deplorables" "irredeemable" comments. At least Romney made his gaffe in private. Clinton put her disdain for the electorate out there for all to see.

I really wish people would start recognizing that they nominated a dud. You could have picked Bernie, you didn't, and you lost. Time to move on. Let's pick a better candidate next time, FFS

Plus that organized bribe machine...er charity. Interesting how donations blew away like the wind the moment she lost.

Democrats will do better in the future with half decent candidates and will have the wind at the back, just like the Republicans had. Thats how it goes.

I think everybody on this thread has long accepted that it matters not who sits in the White House.

They all believe in the same orthodoxy, hire the same people, and legislate the same things.

A third major party is badly needed in the USA.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Why so much reluctance for people to admit Clinton was a bad candidate?

Put the FBI aside for a second. She was a Wall Street candidate. Whatever idealism she may have once had gave way to 6 figure speeches to Goldman Sachs. She was literally a Wall Street Senator. She's a well known and unapologetic hawk. She ran against our natural American disinclination for dynasties. And she did the most idiotic thing she could...she insulted in harsh terms a huge swath of the citizenry with her "basket of deplorables" "irredeemable" comments. At least Romney made his gaffe in private. Clinton put her disdain for the electorate out there for all to see.

I really wish people would start recognizing that they nominated a dud. You could have picked Bernie, you didn't, and you lost. Time to move on. Let's pick a better candidate next time, FFS

I've been calling Clinton a bad candidate for months. Initially, I admit I thought she would win, because the other non-Trump GOP candidates were awful, but after Brexit, I knew the game was up for Clinton.

Come on. Why do people believe that Bernie would have done better? He was an independent who registered Democrat just for the primary and when he lost, he left the party. Democratic support for him was not there. Why do people believe that the savage presidental campaign would not have ripped him apart? He never felt the brunt of the republican machine. The avowed socialist? Do you think he would have won the debates?

I am trying to see why people think that he would have done any better with the force of Republican party against him.