Jump to content

Donald Trump Megathread


babiker

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Decay said:

Trump was promising a bitter fight if he lost, while Clinton conceded peacefully. Makes you wonder how things would be if the situation was reversed.

Not much wondering involved, TBH. We've already seen it play out as far as possible during the 'stolen election' of 2000. Gore vs Bush, that went all the way to the US supreme court?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Darklord Rooke said:

Not much wondering involved, TBH. We've already seen it play out as far as possible during the 'stolen election' of 2000? Gore vs Bush, that went all the way to the US supreme court?

During that debacle, we at least didn't have people like ann coulter encouraging people to exercise their "second amendment rights." (Also Gore still won the popular vote and got screwed by an electoral college that shouldn't exist)

I guess I just proved Okarin right with that last comment, but, c'mon man. 

edit: Eh, time to go to bed, maybe be less drunk tomorrow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Decay said:

During that debacle, we at least didn't have people like ann coulter encouraging people to exercise their "second amendment rights." (Also Gore still won the popular vote and got screwed by an electoral college that shouldn't exist)

I guess I just proved Okarin right with that last comment, but, c'mon man. 

edit: Eh, time to go to bed, maybe be less drunk tomorrow.

Heh, Gore got screwed by people who couldn't vote correctly in Florida.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/31/politics/bush-gore-2000-election-results-studies/ 

The above study suggests that had the recount not been stopped, Bush would have still likely won the recount, BUT more people left to the polling place intending to vote for Gore. 

Quote

This study showed that Democratic voters were far more likely to make the mistake of casting an overvote than Republican voters. Gore was marked on 84,197 of the overvote ballots, compared to 37,731 for Bush. USA Today's headline at the time read, "Florida voter errors cost Gore the election."

No one's fault by their own, unfortunately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Darklord Rooke said:

Nobody focused any attention on him. He was an oddity, but one that never had his policies, or anything at all, put under any intense scrutiny. The idea that he’s competent is something that is yet to be determined, and the same for his policies.

Clinton on the other hand was blasted. Sanders bemoaned a lack of journalistic attention, in some ways that could have played to his favour.

Sanders choked when the NY Times panel interviewed him.  He didn't even understand the fundamentals of his core policy aims.  That's when I dropped my support for him; he was just another demagogue (though not to the same extent as Trump).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Decay said:

Trump was promising a bitter fight if he lost, while Clinton conceded peacefully. Makes you wonder how things would be if the situation was reversed.

In which universe were you watching the election?
Clinton was a sore loser. She didn't gave her concession speech herself and it wasn't even a real one ("You can go home now." lol). And that is the same woman who shamed Trump for "insulting" Democracy and the American people when he voiced concerns regarding the biased media (which are obviously true as we have seen tonight and the weeks before). What a hypocrite. What a coward. Now we can look at her real face under the fake grin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Tyrosyn said:

In which universe were you watching the election?
Clinton was a sore loser. She didn't gave her concession speech herself and it wasn't even a real one ("You can go home now." lol). And that is the same woman who shamed Trump for "insulting" Democracy and the American people when he voiced concerns regarding the biased media (which are obviously true as we have seen tonight and the weeks before). What a hypocrite. What a coward. Now we can look at her real face under the fake grin.

In which way is that less conceding than Trump the very same day of the elections not promising to concede if he loses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Decay said:

Trump was promising a bitter fight if he lost, while Clinton conceded peacefully. Makes you wonder how things would be if the situation was reversed.

You know what else Trump promised? To "lock her up".  Specifically, he promised to assign a special prosecutor to prosecute his political rival over her conduct while Secretary of State.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jun Inoue said:

In which way is that less conceding than Trump the very same day of the elections not promising to concede if he loses.

Not promising to concede is not the same as not conceding. He was the smarter player here, he never promised anything while Clinton insulted him for not promising to concede. Now she looks like a massive hypocrite who played herself and he takes home the win. Sure you can speculate what he would have done if he lost (I myself did not expect him to concede) but he didn't lose so that's a moot point now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, sanahtlig said:

You know what else Trump promised? To "lock her up".  Specifically, he promised to assign a special prosecutor to prosecute his political rival over her conduct while Secretary of State.

In Australia, each political party promises deep investigations over the behaviour of the other. Bill Shorten has been under investigation over past behaviour, Julia Gillard has been under investigation of past behaviour, there were attempts to impeach George W Bush over his lies with the Iraq invasion, and Bill Clinton due to his affair. Pursuing past behaviour of a political rival that could be corrupt and/or illegal is nothing new. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Palas said:

Now of course I'm not American so what I have to say here may not mean much, but it seems to me who's completely blind are those who made of trying to understand Trump supporters not a political quest but an anthropological one. As in, asking among themselves "why would people vote for Trump??" and proceeding to formulate responses based on "they're white" or "they're just angry" instead of actually asking these people. I mean, the new left seems so infatuated with their worldview that they're willing to alienate everyone they see as enemies so as not to allow impurities into a perfect system, even if it gets them less votes or excludes actual political dialogue (by that I mean, well, participating in elections).

I mean, I saw some guy on Twitter claiming Trump actually underperformed amongst white people and performed better amongst black and hispanic people when compared to Mitt Romney in 2012. That shouldn't be ignored, should it? And yet, the first reaction from people I saw on Twitter was sad tweeting and self-indulgently talking about how hate and bigotry won. I mean Jesus Christ, fuck you, you're not a magical girl and neither is Hillary.

Assuming a large group of unrelated people is inherently dumb, evil or crazy has never ever ever ever granted us anything good - and it has proven to be harmful yet again.

Check this article out - http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/trumps-america-hiding-in-plain-sight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Tyrosyn said:

In which universe were you watching the election?
Clinton was a sore loser. She didn't gave her concession speech herself and it wasn't even a real one ("You can go home now." lol). And that is the same woman who shamed Trump for "insulting" Democracy and the American people when he voiced concerns regarding the biased media (which are obviously true as we have seen tonight and the weeks before). What a hypocrite. What a coward. Now we can look at her real face under the fake grin.

I was watching an election where:

1) Trump promised to contest the results if he lost no matter how he lost. And was also preemptively proclaiming voter fraud in the absence of any possible evidence of it. Which, as this night likely shows, no such fraud was taking place regardless.

2) Hillary Clinton didn't give a concession speech.

Excuse me if I look at these two events and consider one side a poorer loser than the other. The poorer loser ended up winning, which means his worst side ended up not being exposed, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there. The original post I was responding to was proclaiming democrats poor losers and republicans graceful in comparison, when the republican candidate was promising to drag our country through the mud if he didn't get his way.

Now, I respect your right to prefer trump and to voice your preference. But the election is over, dude. The democrats lost. You don't have to spin every single event in Trump's favor anymore. The battle is over and you can cease fire. The least I would expect is for you to be able to look at the facts as they are. But I suppose your post proves that above all else, Trump's supporters are poor winners as well. Continue sticking it to those filthy SJWs, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Decay said:

And was also preemptively proclaiming voter fraud in the absence of any possible evidence of it. Which, as this night likely shows, no such fraud was taking place regardless.

Was actually happening on both sides. The Democrats launched legal action in 6 or 7 different states just prior to the election: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/democrats-republican-poll-watching-lawsuits/index.html 

The Supreme Court Monday denied an emergency request filed by Democratic lawyers to reinstate a federal court order barring the Trump campaign from engaging in activities that Democrats allege could lead to voter intimidation in Ohio.

The ruling is a win for the Trump campaign and the GOP state parties, which have successfully fended off several pre-emptive lawsuits filed by Democrats across the country that accuse Trump and Republicans of "conspiring to threaten and intimidate minority voters in urban neighborhoods from voting in the 2016 election."

6 minutes ago, Decay said:

The original post I was responding to was proclaiming democrats poor losers and republicans graceful in comparison,

The intellectual left must be more of a European thing :( 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Darklord Rooke said:

Was actually happening on both sides. The Democrats launched legal action in 6 or 7 different states: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/democrats-republican-poll-watching-lawsuits/index.html 

The Supreme Court Monday denied an emergency request filed by Democratic lawyers to reinstate a federal court order barring the Trump campaign from engaging in activities that Democrats allege could lead to voter intimidation in Ohio.

The ruling is a win for the Trump campaign and the GOP state parties, which have successfully fended off several pre-emptive lawsuits filed by Democrats across the country that accuse Trump and Republicans of "conspiring to threaten and intimidate minority voters in urban neighborhoods from voting in the 2016 election."

The intellectual left must be more of a European thing :( 

Such petty lawsuits happen every election cycle with both camps (which is why we have such a responsive court system in place to address them) and aren't quite the thing I was talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyr isn't even American lol.  This wasn't his "battle".  He's just in it for the lulz. :P

20 minutes ago, Darklord Rooke said:

In Australia, each political party promises deep investigations over the behaviour of the other. Bill Shorten has been under investigation over past behaviour, Julia Gillard has been under investigation of past behaviour, there were attempts to impeach George W Bush over his lies with the Iraq invasion, and Bill Clinton due to his affair. Pursuing past behaviour of a political rival that could be corrupt and/or illegal is nothing new. 

No, what Trump did was unprecedented.  His rallying call leading up to elections was literally to lock up his rival.  Of course opposing political parties will be the first to leap when someone on the other side shows a legal opening.  It's quite different to use the electoral machine to have a "trial by election", suggesting that criminal trials should be instigated and decided by a popularity contest.  Also, Clinton was already thoroughly investigated.  Trump promised to reopen the case outside the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, which didn't give him the result he wanted.  That's exactly how these things work in a Banana Republic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Decay said:

 and aren't quite the thing I was talking about.

I really don't see the difference :S

One uses voter fraud to help explain a loss, the other uses voter intimidation. Each side accuses the other of legally not abiding by the system. The only difference is that one accusation came from Trump, and the other came from the party (probably endorsed by the leader.)

 

3 hours ago, sanahtlig said:

No, what Trump did was unprecedented.  His rallying call during elections was literally to lock up his rival.  Of course opposing political parties will be the first to leap when someone on the other side shows a legal opening.  It's quite different to use the electoral machine to have a "trial by election" to suggest that criminal trials should be instigated and decided by a popularity contest.  Also, Clinton was already thoroughly investigated.  Trump promised to reopen the case outside the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, which didn't give him the result he wanted.

His rallying call was hyperbole, he can't go outside the system and he can't act as judge and jury. He knows this, his fanbase knows this, it's a bit much to expect much than a rigorous pursuit of Clinton. 

I don't think anybody has seriously thought Clinton would be tried by election, not Clinton, not Trump himself.

And so Clinton is going to be investigated again. Julia Gillard was investigated 2 or 3 times. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to hide. Although if she had nothing to hide I'd question her use of a private server.

He's promising to assign a special prosecutor to look into potential misconduct by Clinton. Exploring all avenues is quite allowed, and exploring the idea that the FBI investigation was tainted due to conflict of interest is an idea that's popular with the fanbase ... apparently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Darklord Rooke said:

His rallying call was hyperbole, he can't go outside the system and he can't act as judge and jury. He knows this, his fanbase knows this, it's a bit much to expect much than a rigorous pursuit of Clinton. 

I don't think anybody has seriously thought Clinton would be tried by election, not Clinton, not Trump himself.

And so Clinton is going to be investigated again. Julia Gillard was investigated 2 or 3 times. If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to hide. Although if she had nothing to hide I'd question her use of a private server.

He's promising to assign a special prosecutor to look into potential misconduct by Clinton. Exploring all avenues is quite allowed, and exploring the idea that the FBI investigation was tainted due to conflict of interest is an idea that's popular with the fanbase ... apparently.

Yeah, and everyone thought Hitler's rhetoric about putting Jews in their place was just hyperbole too.  It's a dangerous game when candidates' political messages are filled with so much "hyperbole" that you can no longer elucidate what their actual policy in office will be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even with the debacle of 2000, there are other factors one can consider as to why Gore didn't win. For example, he didn't even carry his home state of Tennessee, they went for Bush. Even in the most one-sided ass kicking in the electoral college of all time, that being 1984, Walter Mondale still managed to carry his home state of Minnesota. It was the only state he carried (along with the District of Columbia) but he did carry it. Had Gore carried Tennessee then Florida wouldn't have mattered.

I'm not sure what to make of Hillary's actions (or non-actions) after the election. I'm sure her pride is severely hurt, as she believes she's the better candidate (and honestly, she was the better candidate in many different ways). It does seem a bit cold to not address your constituents, but she did quietly concede when she saw the writing on the wall. I'm not so sure Trump would have done the same had the roles been reversed.

The part that may be bothersome is that, at least in name, the GOP controls the Presidency and Congress for at least two years. I'm really not a huge fan of one party being in control and would prefer a mix of the two compromising together, which is one of the reasons why the GOP was so damned deplorable the past 6 years. Now what remains to be seen is will the GOP actually have the balls to stand up to Trump's wishes, or will they fall in line, and at what degree for both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Decay said:

lmao if you think sanders had a better chance against trump. Trump is a force of nature. A horrible, unimaginably destructive force. But unstoppable nonetheless.

Tbh probably, trump really only started to have a chance after Assange leaked a lot of shit about Clinton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...