I think a lot, though not all, of Trump's bravado was done to convince people he was the guy to vote for. I have a feeling that his advisors will get him to tone down some.
I can't help thinking that the sheer levels of vitriol directed at Trump supporters by Clinton supporters helped created an artificial echo chamber where some confirmed their support for Hillary while others kept quiet about their support for Donald, which became increasingly self-reinforcing because "everyone with any decency is supporting Hillary". Then when it mattered and nobody could see, people expressed their preference in the one poll that actually counted and the echo chamber imploded.
I wonder how many Trump supporters who were bitching and complaining about the electoral college and whining about how it should be about the popular vote are now praising the electoral college system. lol
Something I posted on Facebook last night...... I did edit it to add a few words I originally missed on FB, and to remove the choice words. America has the president/leader it deserves. Of course, if Hillary had won, America would have the president/leader it deserves. Congratulations America for choosing clowns.
Not me. I still think the overall tally of total popular votes is the fairest way to do it. I live in Washington State on the East side in Spokane, but the West side, including the biggest city, Seattle, ALWAYS votes Democrat and liberal. Therefore, the Democratic/liberal candidate ALWAYS gets the electoral votes. I'm DEFINITELY NOT liberal or Democratic. The West side of the state does not represent me whatsoever...
All I can say is to those who said they would leave if Trump won. "Good by. Good riddance. Don't let the door hit you on the way out."
That's my sentiment, too. Of course, most of it is just empty threats by people not really intending to leave...
I'm not worried. I'm thrilled that somebody who respects our Constitution and doesn't want to tax the snot out of us to pay for socialism endeavors is in office...
True, but this IS Trump we're talking about. It's like placing a 4 year old in front of the red button and telling him not to push it. :.:
There is a high probability that something along those lines happened. And that people are more worried about bread-and-butter issues like the economy and their actual livelihood and not so much about the sentiments du jour that are being artificially inflated by media outlets looking for more viewership and therefore advertising dollars, who believed in their own emotionally manipulative message so much that they utterly forgot to be actually objective fact reporters, and ended up soundly shooting themselves in the foot. Maybe they will take a clue and learn to fact check and report the actual news objectively, but I highly doubt it, because it's simply not as profitable as emotional manipulation has proven to be. Maybe their viewers will take a clue and choose C-SPAN over Twitter, Yahoo and Buzzfeed for actual political information ... but I sincerely doubt it. Because ain't nobody got time to objectively watch actual politicians do their actual job.
With the current setup your state goes Democratic because they are the largest voting group in the state. If you're anything like Pennsylvania you'll have one or two major cities that vote Democrat while the rural remainder of the state votes Democrat but is outnumbered by the city dwellers. A move to the overall popular vote would mean places like LA, NYC and DC would have a disproportionate effect on vast areas of low population density. NYC has approximately 8m people living in it, and the idea that the inhabitants of that one city should be able to outvote the combined populations of Rhode Island, Montana, Delaware, South Dakota, Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming all put together makes democracy sound more and more like two wolves and a sheep voting on who is for dinner. If you really want the population of Seattle to override not only the rest of Washington but also parts of Idaho as well, go for the popular vote. As far as I can see the yawning difference between the nature of urban life and rural life paired with the yawning difference in both population density and political outlook in occupants of the two different types of area is more than enough to demonstrate why government should be as localized as possible. What works well in the suburbs of LA probably won't work as well in remote areas of Montana, for example.
The immediate issues are clearly more pressing concerns than what the media tells us or even what figures the media reports. I read one report that said that insurance premiums, on average, have gone up by 5% annually under Obamacare. And that's great and all, but doesn't change the fact that my $670/month policy is being discontinued and the cheapest suitable policy I can find is now $1,060/month. Trying to figure out percentages is tricky because I ran out of fingers and toes to count but it's certainly a lot more than 5%. Yes, there are all sorts of tax credits available which is fine and all but ultimately makes Obamacare look like a scheme to take vast amounts of taxpayer money and shovel it at insurance companies, all the while telling the little people not to worry about it because the tax credits will cover the increase. In fairness this isn't an entirely like-for-like comparison because my discontinued policy is a "bronze" one and there aren't any bronze policies on offer at all right now, so I'm comparing a silver policy to a bronze policy. That said, the fact there are no bronze policies means I have little option. Then we see the economy. Some point to the stock market at record highs as proof that Obama did a good job. And the stock market being high is really good, if you've got money invested in the stock market. If you're Joe Sixpack just trying to get by then the fact the stock market is high because the "economy is doing so well" merely proves that you're not getting to see any of the benefits of the improved economy. And if the economy really were doing so well we'd probably have fewer people on food stamps and tax credits. Instead the tidal wave of Treasuries creates enough money to lift just about anything, but needless to say the little people like Joe Sixpack don't get to see much of that. Who does? Well, the people who have money invested in the stock market. When investing in bonds people expect a higher interest rate for investing over a long term when compared to a short term. It's fair enough, you're tying your money up for longer so you want a bigger reward for doing it. When bond yields go negative it means people are willingly buying a product that is guaranteed to lose them money. Why would anyone lend money to the government now, in exchange for less money in the future, unless something was seriously out of whack? To be clear, I'm not talking about inflation-adjusted figures, I'm talking about handing over $1000 now in exchange for maybe $985 in a few years time. This isn't a sign of an economy that is healthy. I suspect you are right that the media hypes one issue after another after another when Joe Sixpack is looking at the fact his grocery bill keeps rising while his paycheck does not, Joe Sixpack just wants to be able to feed his family and have a bit left over and doesn't really care about the plight of the person with a penis who wants to use the ladies' room, can't figure out how a 5% premium increase explains his healthcare woes, and just wants the system to work for him the way it seems to work for others. Then he's faced with the ultimate establishment figure who despite being in government for decades seems to still have the stench of corruption about her, and an anti-establishment figure who may be a billionaire from Manhatten but at least appears to genuinely understand his struggles.
I think he's petty, egotistical, and has some serious issues with women, but I fail to make the leap from there to "ready to destroy the world". I mean the fact that our biggest potential nuclear rival found Clinton a bigger defcon threat than Trump should tell us something.
The sad thing is that I'm not surprised that Trump won. What really surprised me was that Trump showed the maturity of a 4 year old, reverted to name calling, and did other "un-presidential" things............and people ate it up. Mind blown!! What amazed me even more was the vitriol coming from Trump supporters come from people who called themselves "Christian". (There were probably a number of "Christians" who participated in the same manner on behalf of Clinton, but, in all honesty, I didn't see much of that. Or at least they didn't identify themselves as "Christian") A few of those people are my FB friends. Hell, check out the Sean Hannity forum. A ton of them there. It makes me question whether I want to call myself a "Christian", of even be one. As Gandhi said, "I love your Christ, but I do not like your Christians". Keep in mind, if you voted for Trump, I in no way question your Christianity. That would be stupid. But, again, if you question the Christianity of someone who voted for Clinton, you are just as much of an idiot. One thing I found interesting is that when it was announced that Trump became president-elect, Putin and the Russian parliament broke out in applause. I imagine it because they know that he doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground and is weak in any and every policy (politically) known to man. But, once again, the biggest bright spot in this whole thing is the fodder late night shows will have. I truly hope Trump will be a good president (although his past doesn't lead one to logically believe he will be). But in the mean time, whenever he has a hissy fit, or blows a gasket, goes on an incoherent Twitter rant, etc., I will point at the hard core Trumphumpers and laugh. Hey, America is a laughing stock now. Might as well have fun with it. I will close with this: I'm also glad Clinton didn't get in. Figure that one out. 0:0
What's the total population of city versus rural in this country? Also, you assume everybody within a city votes Democrat while everybody in the rural areas votes Republican. I can guarantee that's not true. While a likely minority, I can guarantee some people in Seattle vote conservative and Republican.
I don't know. I'd watch some of Putin's recent public speaking for a different perspective on US foreign policy (specifically, the Russian perspective). Seems to me the Russians see Obama/Clinton as 'the same old' interventionists, acting unilaterally, and often against Russian interests. Not saying Russians are saints... but rather they have every reason to be happy with someone who appears to be more domestically focused.
You could very well be correct. It's just at the moment, being that I don't see anyone how takes him seriously, I could see Trumps (being nice here) weakness being something for them to cheer. But we'll see.