Great result re: Clinton not getting in; not so great result re: Trump being the one to defeat her. We'll see what happens next, but in the mean time my FB page has gone full moron.
For those who can't: HITLER HITLER HITLER HITLER TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER HITLER HITLER HITLER RACISM MISOGYNY RACISM MISOGYNY RACISM MISOGYNY XENOPHOBIAAAAAAAAA LITERALLY, TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER I AM SO ASHAMED TO BE A STRAIGHT WHITE MALE WITH PRIVILEGE WHAT HAVE WE DONE, THE MISOGYNIESSSSSSSSSSSSSSS XENOPHOBIA XENOPHOBIA XENOPHOBIA XENOPHOBIA TRUMP IS LITERALLY HITLER NO WOMAN PRESIDENT, WAHHHHHHHHHH I caught flak for saying that we shouldn't immediately jump to America's death, and instead wait to see what Trump will do. Nope, not good enough, because TRUMP IS HITLER Did I mention? TRUMP IS HITLER
Yeah, the whole "death of America" (from both sides) is moronic at the very least. We'll still be around for a long while. But we'll definitely be the butt of a ton of jokes from other countries for the next 4 years at least.............and rightfully so. Life goes on.
It just kinda came to me that Trump reminds of Kim Jong Un. I wonder how many people take these two seriously..................... As Dani said on my FB post, N. Korean citizens take Un seriously. But Trump and Un on a world stage??
On the CBC panel yesterday, there was a rather shrill progressive lady that actually made the comparison to Hitler. The best part of came later, with Mark Critch, a comedian of the show "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" starting ranting at Peter Mansbridge, the CBC national news anchor, that it was his fault (satirically), because he's going to retire soon. Then he downed a glass of beer in the pub he was at. Unfortunately it is not on Youtube yet.
Despite all your swipes at Trump, I still believe Trump will screw things up much less than "socialistic, hate the Constitution, liberal, Hillary" would have...
Well, with a Republican dominated House and Senate, the next four might evoke something akin to a return-swing of Foucault's Pendulum - a decisive shift to the right. Seriously, though, one can image a wisened GOP rising to the occasion and articulately molding Mr. Trump's upcoming policies into highly effective legislation. Guess we'll see.
He's not the candidate I wanted. I wanted that party, but not that candidate. However, the POTUS is one person with many workers and advisors. Trump picked a great VP that has political, and specifically executive experience in political office. He clearly listened to his advisors the last several weeks. His messages were on target. Got away from crazy comments and tweets. Pounded on Hillary's questionable emails and issues. Pounded on the lack of success in the programs Obama has established. I think it's reasonable to expect he will surround himself with a good team. His list of judges for recommendations for Supreme Court Justices is a list of originalists, not activists. That is a very good thing. He's not Hitler. He's not the nut from North Korea. He's not a fascist. That's just ad hominems from the left. He won't push a button. He's arrogant. He's brash. He's not an idiot no matter how many times the left might say so.
I would consider him quite an authoritarian though, at least based on his statements and actions leading up to the election.
True, but if the Right wants to survive the next decade, it needs a serious battle plan change. Seen the election map of 18 to 25 year olds? Nearly all blue.
He engages in loud, extended social media shoot-outs too. Many wonder (myself included) what that will look like with the powers and privs of the President behind it.
You don't even know, as a German who actually understands German history, what that makes me want to say. I have tried to bring *gentle* correction, but that usually just gets blown to pieces in someone's echo chamber and never reaches their actual brain. "The Congress of the Weimar Republic actually voted to give Hitler the absolute power he ended up getting and abusing." "WE DON'T ACTUALLY CARE BECAUSE HITLER NAZI HITLER HITLER HITLER" Mmkay then. 8)
I think so. Also, he's not the same Donald from 20 years ago because people do grow up. Also his campaign manager is a woman. People tend to forget that little tidbit. He's got no problem putting women into prevalent positions that have nothing to do with intercourse.
I know it's not as clear cut as saying that all city dwellers are the same, nor that all country dwellers are the same. But the fact remains that NYC has a population slightly in excess of eight entire states, the fact remains that cities tend to elect Democrat candidates, and therefore a system based purely on the popular vote would mean that huge rural areas are likely to be outvoted by people living in cities. The main points I was looking to make were that looking at nothing more than the popular vote would result in cities overruling the countryside to a greater extent than it currently does, and in any event government is best conducted at the most local level that works. You probably don't need rifles to control the roaming wolves in downtown LA or Lower Manhatten but a nationwide ban on rifles based on the needs of LA and NYC doesn't work so well if you're a forester in remote parts of Montana and the nice city folks decided you can defend yourself just fine with a stick and a phone call to animal control. As an aside the popular vote would mean it would take much longer to decide the result as a matter of routine. As things stand once one candidate has got more than half the vote in any state (or at least sufficiently more than half that a recount is pointless), that state can declare a result for the victor and it doesn't really matter if it takes a while to count the rest of the votes. If things are based on the popular vote then far more votes would need to be counted. As at the time I woke up this morning the result was decided - Trump had won with 278 college votes to Clinton's 220-odd. There were still six states that hadn't declared at all but the final result was already known. In theory those six states could take all the ballot papers and burn them uncounted, it wouldn't make any difference to the presidential election.
Up to a point, perhaps. I wonder how many of those 18-25s are still in the heady days of youth where it's only fair that the rich people pay for stuff, innit? I wonder how many of them will still be keen for the rich people to pay for stuff when they realise they are the rich people and everyone else wants them to pay for the free stuff. I remember a saying that says if you aren't a liberal by age 18 you have no heart and if you aren't conservative by age 40 you have no brain. I know things aren't as simple as that, but it is interesting to see the people who were the most ardent lefties during my university days subsequently ending up joining the Young Conservatives pretty much as soon as they got their first job.
I saw that. I'll bet the Democrats who are howling for the "fairer" popular vote would be very quiet had Hillary won the electoral college but lost the popular vote. I'll bet then the electoral college would be the great and fair process that ensured people were properly represented.
Can I just say that some people are simply very, very poor and immature losers, and full of drama in addition to? Especially if they put way too much stock in the presidency as if that's the end-all be-all about how things operate in our country. On that note, I also understand people actually bet on these presidential elections, and have money riding on the results? I wonder how much of that influences the saltiness we're seeing and the protests that are being instigated? I can't honestly understand how a candidate losing or winning an election would affect anyone that personally unless they had actual money riding on it or some other measure of great personal investment that would cause such a degree of emotional outrage. Things that make me go ... hmmmm ... ;~: