[Nicodimas]

The protests are disturbing and am suprised the media isn't being far more negative. Trump followed the rules and won ... The fault lies in the dem party and basically ignoring a huge section of America and letting them suffer.

Let's see what Trump can do... Before...who knows this might work out great! As a American citizen we should all stand for our mighty government and duly elected official.

[Tsundoku]

 death rattle, on 10 November 2016 - 04:51 AM, said:

 Mentalist, on 10 November 2016 - 03:41 AM, said:

 Briar King, on 10 November 2016 - 03:11 AM, said:

Several cities in protest right now. I'm hoping what I said 2 days ago holds true for this crowd that's it's fast and NO ONE gets hurt in the process. I fully expected this to be the Anti Clinton crowd today.

Lol, this is the West. such protests are doomed. Public perception of govt`s legitimacy is too strong.

And besides, Trump won by the rules. He gamed the system brilliantly, but it was all within the rules.

That "all within the rules" certainly has an asterisk this year though: https://www.thenatio...-story-of-2016/

Didn't the Dems learn their lessons from the 2000 election shenanigans that stole the Presidency out from under them?
For the life of me I cannot understand why they let the Reps control your version of the Electoral Commission in each state etc. People on those commissions should NOT be allowed to be members of any party.

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

EDIT: I was wondering if any of the Secret Service would tender their resignation because they won't feel they can take a bullet for the Orange Troll, but then I thought they've probably had to view it as being total professionals and guarding the office, not the man, for a number of repulsive Presidents over the years.

This post has been edited by Captain Needa: 10 November 2016 - 07:29 AM

[EmperorMagus]

One thing I find annoying with this whole Trump thing is how they are all about "telling it like it is" and "Not being PC" but as soon as I call Trump supporters retards (regardless of whether they are retards or not) everyone of them goes up in arms about luh-berals and ivy-league "elites''.

Fuck off, at least be consistent.

<-- an extremely annoyed keyboard warrior.

[Tsundoku]

 EmperorMagus, on 10 November 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

One thing I find annoying with this whole Trump thing is how they are all about "telling it like it is" and "Not being PC" but as soon as I call Trump supporters retards (regardless of whether they are retards or not) everyone of them goes up in arms about luh-berals and ivy-league "elites''.

Fuck off, at least be consistent.

<-- an extremely annoyed keyboard warrior.

Dude, you're from the Middle East - you're a freakin' keyboard jihadi.

And remember, one of the biggest things about retards, arseholes etc is that they are great at giving it but can't take it.

This post has been edited by Captain Needa: 10 November 2016 - 10:09 AM

[Terez]

For Morgy, more on Hillary and neoliberalism, from Naomi Klein:

https://www.theguard...d-americas-fate

[Tattersail_]

Would Mass movement from one state to another before the next census on population have a major effect on voting? regarding the number of representatives in the House of Representatives, and would this even be possible?

[Tiste Simeon]

 EmperorMagus, on 10 November 2016 - 07:43 AM, said:

One thing I find annoying with this whole Trump thing is how they are all about "telling it like it is" and "Not being PC" but as soon as I call Trump supporters retards (regardless of whether they are retards or not) everyone of them goes up in arms about luh-berals and ivy-league "elites''.

Fuck off, at least be consistent.

<-- an extremely annoyed keyboard warrior.

Yeah in theory bullying a Trump supporter shouldn't be an issue because they have clearly displayed they are OK with bullying...

[Aptorian]

How hypocritical. You saw on TV some guy being a jerk, so this excuses being a jerk to everybody else you connect to this guy? The irony and futility of political discourse is phenomenal.

How do you imagine the conversation among Trump supporters goes about Hilary/democratic supporters? Exactly the same?

This post has been edited by Apt: 10 November 2016 - 12:26 PM

[MTS]

The problem is how distorted media reporting has become on these issues. Trump being outrageous generated huge viewership and discussion over 18 months, and the legitimate reasons Jeff from Michigan might consider voting for Trump were drowned out by all the race-baiting, mysoginistic, Islamophobic rhetoric also spewing from Trump and his supporters.

With Hillary, all the other side heard was the corruption and the establishment credentials. Is it any wonder people look across aisles and see 'retards' and threats to democracy? It's how one's been conditioned. Simplicity is appealing.

I for one will be very interested to see how the Democrats respond to Trumps presidency. Will they go the full obstructionist route (likely) or will they be more pragmatic in order to save Obama's legacy?

[Tsundoku]

 Apt, on 10 November 2016 - 12:24 PM, said:

How hypocritical. You saw on TV some guy being a jerk, so this excuses being a jerk to everybody else you connect to this guy? The irony and futility of political discourse is phenomenal.

How do you imagine the conversation among Trump supporters goes about Hilary/democratic supporters? Exactly the same?

I don't recall HRC saying "... grab them by the cock."

But yeah, just because you voted for someone doesn't mean you yourself display all their tendencies. Otherwise HRC voters would all be cozying up to Big Business, right?

Then again, Trump comes across as a bully, a sexist, a narcissist, a racist, an egotistical blowhard. What sort of person does that appeal to? Someone who voted for him can say they only cared about that whole Make America Great Again stuff, but then I ask "Yes, but what about all the other stuff?" Swing voters may or may not have been affected by the FBI thing 11 days out, but strangely weren't bothered by Trump's many failings over the last 3 decades. Or maybe none of those previously polled actually did change and what got Trump home was all those "undercover/undeclared voters" especially in the Rust Belt.

They had a choice to vote for anyone else on the ballot. Or write someone in. Or even stay home. But no, they voted for him. What does that tell you?

Pretty much the worst you can say about a HRC voter is they voted for someone who is a classic creature of "the Beltway", or "the status quo/business as usual".

What won it for Trump was tapping into the vast swathes of Americans who were lashing out by voting for the guy who was lashing out.

I'm going to simply adore watching the exponential rise of Buyer's Regret the USA will experience that will dwarf the Brexit "Bregret" hangover by several orders of magnitude.

USAnnians, if you truly believe your country is the greatest in the world, how about you act like it and behave a bit more responsibly when you cast your vote. Hell, half of you who were eligible DIDN'T EVEN BOTHER. "Oh," they may say "The candidates didn't inspire me". How about your sense of responsibility? If not to the rest of the world then maybe to your fellow Americans?

The beauty of this is if I'm wrong and Trump turns out to be a decent president - I STILL WIN. I either get a decent President getting the world's most powerful nation doing basically the right thing, or I get to point, laugh and say "I told you so, you fucking idiots". That may make me petty but I can live with that. One takes what one can get out of this whole sordid affair.

(I so want to be the fly on the wall when he meets with Xi Jinping.)

EDIT
@MTS
Yeah, will the Dems "take the high road"? More than just being interesting to watch for it's own sake, this has a lot riding on it for everyone.

This post has been edited by Captain Needa: 10 November 2016 - 01:01 PM

[QuickTidal]

A friend of my wife's on FB posted an update where she basically called out anyone who was on her friend list who is American and voted Trump, or who is Canadian and WOULD support Trump...and said she'd happily snip them out of her life.

So one guy does say he supports and voted Trump. Then went on to spout his reasons....all of which line up with every last bit of incorrect rhetoric or outright (proven) lies that the Trump campaign put forth.

Some other friend of hers took him to task about it (thankfully, so I didn't have to) , and noted that this guy had a wife and daughter. He asked "Would you let your daughter work for Trump?" and he replied "Of course, I don't believe any of that sexist nonsense."....to which the challenger said "double digits of women came forward with stories of his vile behaviour"...and the Trump supporter said "Oh, and they just HAPPENED to come forward two months before the election?" and the challenger replied "This is the very reason WHY women are afraid to come forward with sexual abuse claims...because of their fear of a powerful man and his influence."....and the Trump supporter said "Oh, isn't that convenient, I don't buy it without proof."

And I shake my damned head, this is a CANADIAN saying these things.

So some people REALLY do buy into his racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted rhetoric hook, line, and sinker AND think it's okay to say and do those same things.

[Nevyn]

 QuickTidal, on 10 November 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

A friend of my wife's on FB posted an update where she basically called out anyone who was on her friend list who is American and voted Trump, or who is Canadian and WOULD support Trump...and said she'd happily snip them out of her life.

So one guy does say he supports and voted Trump. Then went on to spout his reasons....all of which line up with every last bit of incorrect rhetoric or outright (proven) lies that the Trump campaign put forth.

Some other friend of hers took him to task about it (thankfully, so I didn't have to) , and noted that this guy had a wife and daughter. He asked "Would you let your daughter work for Trump?" and he replied "Of course, I don't believe any of that sexist nonsense."....to which the challenger said "double digits of women came forward with stories of his vile behaviour"...and the Trump supporter said "Oh, and they just HAPPENED to come forward two months before the election?" and the challenger replied "This is the very reason WHY women are afraid to come forward with sexual abuse claims...because of their fear of a powerful man and his influence."....and the Trump supporter said "Oh, isn't that convenient, I don't buy it without proof."

And I shake my damned head, this is a CANADIAN saying these things.

So some people REALLY do buy into his racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted rhetoric hook, line, and sinker AND think it's okay to say and do those same things.

Well did no one point out to him that Trump is caught on tape describing this behaviour?

And that for any excuse of "just talk" it was not him saying he'd "like" to do these things, or bets he could. He described a specific instance of trying to seduce a married woman (while Melania was pregnant) as a OPENER, and then said that he went up and kissed women unasked.

I'd leave him a message like that and then unfriend.

[Nevyn]

There is also a certain amount of depression I get that people question the timing and thus truth of a dozen women scattered around the country, few or none of them very political, because of their timing.

But they did not question the authenticity or accuracy of the Podesta emails, which were stolen by foreign state sponsored criminals and released with curious timing. Hmm, they can hack 50k emails, but I bet they can't alter them. Plus, these are fine upstanding cybercriminals, not dirty evil US citizen women.


It takes a special brand of wilful ignorance to sustain the beliefs that these people do.

[QuickTidal]

 Nevyn, on 10 November 2016 - 02:14 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 10 November 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

A friend of my wife's on FB posted an update where she basically called out anyone who was on her friend list who is American and voted Trump, or who is Canadian and WOULD support Trump...and said she'd happily snip them out of her life.

So one guy does say he supports and voted Trump. Then went on to spout his reasons....all of which line up with every last bit of incorrect rhetoric or outright (proven) lies that the Trump campaign put forth.

Some other friend of hers took him to task about it (thankfully, so I didn't have to) , and noted that this guy had a wife and daughter. He asked "Would you let your daughter work for Trump?" and he replied "Of course, I don't believe any of that sexist nonsense."....to which the challenger said "double digits of women came forward with stories of his vile behaviour"...and the Trump supporter said "Oh, and they just HAPPENED to come forward two months before the election?" and the challenger replied "This is the very reason WHY women are afraid to come forward with sexual abuse claims...because of their fear of a powerful man and his influence."....and the Trump supporter said "Oh, isn't that convenient, I don't buy it without proof."

And I shake my damned head, this is a CANADIAN saying these things.

So some people REALLY do buy into his racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted rhetoric hook, line, and sinker AND think it's okay to say and do those same things.

Well did no one point out to him that Trump is caught on tape describing this behaviour?

And that for any excuse of "just talk" it was not him saying he'd "like" to do these things, or bets he could. He described a specific instance of trying to seduce a married woman (while Melania was pregnant) as a OPENER, and then said that he went up and kissed women unasked.

I'd leave him a message like that and then unfriend.

He actually did, and the Trump supporter's response was "All men have engaged in such "locker room talk" at one time or another. It's not something that should get everyone's back up."...so yeah, this is the kind of guy we are dealing with. I sincerely hope she unfriends him.

[amphibian]

 Captain Needa, on 10 November 2016 - 07:26 AM, said:

EDIT: I was wondering if any of the Secret Service would tender their resignation because they won't feel they can take a bullet for the Orange Troll, but then I thought they've probably had to view it as being total professionals and guarding the office, not the man, for a number of repulsive Presidents over the years.

From my knowledge of military, police, and FBI (the groups most of the Secret Service are drawn from), I doubt there's more than a handful who'd even consider this and they'd be the people of color. I would even guess that more of them considered resigning over Obama.

[Cause]

 QuickTidal, on 10 November 2016 - 01:22 PM, said:

A friend of my wife's on FB posted an update where she basically called out anyone who was on her friend list who is American and voted Trump, or who is Canadian and WOULD support Trump...and said she'd happily snip them out of her life.

So one guy does say he supports and voted Trump. Then went on to spout his reasons....all of which line up with every last bit of incorrect rhetoric or outright (proven) lies that the Trump campaign put forth.

Some other friend of hers took him to task about it (thankfully, so I didn't have to) , and noted that this guy had a wife and daughter. He asked "Would you let your daughter work for Trump?" and he replied "Of course, I don't believe any of that sexist nonsense."....to which the challenger said "double digits of women came forward with stories of his vile behaviour"...and the Trump supporter said "Oh, and they just HAPPENED to come forward two months before the election?" and the challenger replied "This is the very reason WHY women are afraid to come forward with sexual abuse claims...because of their fear of a powerful man and his influence."....and the Trump supporter said "Oh, isn't that convenient, I don't buy it without proof."

And I shake my damned head, this is a CANADIAN saying these things.

So some people REALLY do buy into his racist, homophobic, sexist, bigoted rhetoric hook, line, and sinker AND think it's okay to say and do those same things.

I was having a similar argument on Facebook. I dont like trump. I really don't. Still a friend of mine said that since he was accused of rape he should not have been allowed to stand for president. I pointed out that already one of the accusers has recanted. She herself told me that only 8% of rape accusations in the US turn out to be false and that is negligible. I told her that the fact that 1 in 10 rape accusers are themselves criminals and that 1 in 10 rapists might be innocent is not negligible. Accusations have to be treated as such. A murderer is innocent until proven guilty, so must a rapist! His locker room talk is not an accusation its a fact and on that basis I am happy to condemn him. As to whether he is a rapist it is certainly unproven.

[Nevyn]

 Cause, on 10 November 2016 - 04:11 PM, said:

I was having a similar argument on Facebook. I dont like trump. I really don't. Still a friend of mine said that since he was accused of rape he should not have been allowed to stand for president. I pointed out that already one of the accusers has recanted. She herself told me that only 8% of rape accusations in the US turn out to be false and that is negligible. I told her that the fact that 1 in 10 rape accusers are themselves criminals and that 1 in 10 rapists might be innocent is not negligible. Accusations have to be treated as such. A murderer is innocent until proven guilty, so must a rapist! His locker room talk is not an accusation its a fact and on that basis I am happy to condemn him. As to whether he is a rapist it is certainly unproven.

It is not locker room talk. It is a confession. Listen to the darn tape. The words "grab them by the pussy" could certainly be taken as locker room talk, but tone deaf such talk that would get you odd looks in a locker room.

But he described trying to seduce a married woman (while married). And he said that he does just kiss women without waiting (largely what he has been accused of). That is not locker room talk. No one talks like that in a locker room. No one describes a made up crime that they like to commit against women and can get away with because they are a star.

Also this is a discussion of whether to elect someone as the representative of your nation's morals to the world, not about whether to convict/imprison someone. So the notion of using a criminal court burden of proof in evaluating it is silly. It is wildly unlikely that all those women are lying.

[QuickTidal]

John Scalzi wrote a post about voting for Trump. Worth a read.

[Aptorian]

 QuickTidal, on 10 November 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

John Scalzi wrote a post about voting for Trump. Worth a read.

Had to stop after that HBO analogy.

He completely ignores the problem of there being a two party system. What he's arguing is choosing between a good thing and a bad thing, when in fact, in a two party system it's more like a bad thing or a different bad thing.

Trump the person may be garbage, but Trump the Republican represents a political party that are caretakers of a great many issues that republican voters are very passionate about. So, rather than giving up what they believe are core polictical values, they choose to elect a terrible person. Hoping that at least they have to pay less taxes or what ever.

The rhetoric in this Scalzi guys blog is the exact bullshit that has lead America to where it is now. Instead of moving towards greater understanding and finding a middle ground, even after the election is done, this guys wants to continue a political mudthrowing contest that has no constructive outcome. Nobody republican is going to agree with him and all his democrat readers are going to sagely nod their heads. That article is basically pandering to an audience of like minded individuals.

[Nevyn]

 Apt, on 10 November 2016 - 05:32 PM, said:

 QuickTidal, on 10 November 2016 - 04:55 PM, said:

John Scalzi wrote a post about voting for Trump. Worth a read.

Had to stop after that HBO analogy.

He completely ignores the problem of there being a two party system.

No he doesn't. The situation is a perfectly fine analogy. Being forced to accept programming you don't want to get a channel is a very apt match to having to choose between 2 candidates.

And of course, it is not 2 candidates, the election had several.

Quote

What he's arguing is choosing between a good thing and a bad thing, when in fact, in a two party system it's more like a bad thing or a different bad thing.

Not at all. In his example, Cinemax = bad, but also "not having HBO" = bad


Thats the whole point. Voters rejected typical and minor bads about Clinton and blew them out of proportion, opting for much worse bads promised by Trump, and then are trying to say they didn't choose those things. But they did. They chose the greater of two evils, and now whatever he does is on them.