US Politics

[kelownabomberfan]

20 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

  Without the College, Hilary would have won quite handedly (assuming both candidates campaigned the same way, which they probably wouldn't have).

Yes, I keep seeing this statement being made that Hillary won the popular vote.  If that was the factor that determined the ultimate winner, then Trump's campaign team would have devised a completely different campaign.  The popular vote as it stands in the US is just a statistic, like how many shots were recorded in a hockey game. 

[The Unknown Poster]

9 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I am not defending his cabinet, but I don't see why skin color or gender is the most important aspect of picking a cabinet.  I realize this isn't a "PC" attitude.  I am just saying that the people I talked to were frustrated by what they saw as incompetent boobs, no matter what their gender or skin color, being appointed to positions of power in the government (no matter which party was in power) purely due to political reasons, and not because of merit or experience or talent.  Is Trump reversing that trend and appointing good people?  I don't know.  I just think saying that they are bad appointments because there are too many "white" people just seems to be reverse discrimination. 

You're being a bit obtuse I think.  Ofcourse we want good people in those position.  This isnt like Trudeau's answer to why he appointed more women "Because..." with no explanation, which in turn revealed he did it ONLY because they were women.

Having women and minorities in cabinet is not to look PC, it's the very relevant taking into account of people's personal experiences in running a diverse country.  And thats not to say white people cant do a good job or arent respected.  Bill Clinton was called the first black President.  There is certainly room for "well, its awfully white but these are good people".  This is largely white, male, filthy rich, friends of Trump and even on the surface some of these appts seem to be lacking. 

[The Unknown Poster]

3 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Yes, I keep seeing this statement being made that Hillary won the popular vote.  If that was the factor that determined the ultimate winner, then Trump's campaign team would have devised a completely different campaign.  The popular vote as it stands in the US is just a statistic, like how many shots were recorded in a hockey game. 

No, not really.  Shots often have nothing to do with the outcome.  Scoring chances do.  But that's a different debate.  The popular vote is important because of how large her victory was and how often the popular vote and the actual outcome align.  The popular vote is indicative of the will of the population in THIS campaign.

Saying Trump would have won the popular vote because he would have campaigned differently is a non-starter.  In THIS campaign a significantly larger group of people wanted Hilary to win than Trump.  That is fact.  More Americans voted for Hilary than Trump.

[kelownabomberfan]

4 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

This is largely white, male, filthy rich, friends of Trump and even on the surface some of these appts seem to be lacking. 

Is this true of Ben Carson too?

[kelownabomberfan]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

Saying Trump would have won the popular vote because he would have campaigned differently is a non-starter. 

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.  Trump's campaign completely out-foxed Hillary's campaign.  And to me saying otherwise is a non-starter.  His campaign was actually brilliant.  And it fooled almost everyone.  Because the people that were supposed to be listening weren't listening to anyone but themselves.

In THIS campaign a significantly larger group of people wanted Hilary to win than Trump.  That is fact.  More Americans voted for Hilary than Trump.

Once again, agree to disagree.  Yes Hillary received more votes, but that really didn't matter to the total outcome.  If you look at that Trump map, you can see how much population is concentrated in very small parts of the USA.  What counted for me were all of the Americans who didn't even bother to vote, in states that really mattered like Michigan and Ohio and Wisconsin and Florida and Pennsylvania.  There were huge disparities in many counties between the number of votes that were cast in 2008 and 2012 for Obama that didn't materialize for Hillary.  Hillary's team thought that they would just "get" all of these votes and so did almost no campaigning in those districts.  Did these people not vote because they were influenced not to vote by the media, who said it was in the bag for Hillary?  Or did they just not like her?  That's the real debate for me.

 

[The Unknown Poster]

7 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

Is this true of Ben Carson too?

Come on....

[The Unknown Poster]

2 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

 

I think the FBI gave Hilary an early Christmas gift - a lump of Trump-shaped coal.  Its not the only reason, ofcourse, but it easily could have swung the result based on the closeness of the election.

[IC Khari]

The Yankees outspent, out fan supported (is that a word?), out promoted, out media hyped, out any other thing you can think of, every other team in baseball the last number of seasons and still lost ... same with Hillary. This is not Canada where Ontario decides the election sometimes right when the polls are closed. It's about fair representation. Both parties have been doing the Electoral College for hundreds of years now, it works because the big States can't decide the vote and voter disenfranchisement (despite what a minority of Dems say) hasn't been an issue because of it. Hillary won California by about 4 million votes and would have lost the popular vote if that State wasn't included. IMO it looks bad on the losers of this election when suddenly they want to change the whole system when their candidate doesn't win. Time to move on ...

[kelownabomberfan]

2 minutes ago, IC Khari said:

 IMO it looks bad on the losers of this election when suddenly they want to change the whole system when their candidate doesn't win. Time to move on ...

This goes also for all of the people complaining about the Canadian system when Harper won a majority with 39% of the popular vote.  This was an outrage!  Then Trudeau wins with 39% of the popular vote and all you hear are crickets. 

[kelownabomberfan]

15 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I think the FBI gave Hilary an early Christmas gift - a lump of Trump-shaped coal.  Its not the only reason, ofcourse, but it easily could have swung the result based on the closeness of the election.

yeah the FBI definitely seemed to give the momentum back to the Trump campaign, though with how grossly inaccurate the polling was the entire election its really tough to say.

[IC Khari]

This is my advice for some of the cry baby far lefters down south ... 

[IC Khari]

18 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I think the FBI gave Hilary an early Christmas gift - a lump of Trump-shaped coal.  Its not the only reason, ofcourse, but it easily could have swung the result based on the closeness of the election.

The fact they put a person in the position to represent their party who had at least 3 active investigations going on simultaneously (Clinton foundation, Benghazi, and personal server/emails) had nothing to do with people being turned off? Let's see, I've lost count ... It was Comey, then it wasn't, then it was, then it wasn't, Russian hackers, Electoral college, yada yada yada. 

[IC Khari]

Here's some words of wisdom from a past President that IMO sum up this recent US election perfectly ...

[kelownabomberfan]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

I think the FBI gave Hilary an early Christmas gift - a lump of Trump-shaped coal.  Its not the only reason, ofcourse, but it easily could have swung the result based on the closeness of the election.

On another site I follow a poster pointed out that the Democrats lost 80 or more seats in the two houses on November 8th as well as the presidency.  Who gets the blame for that one as the Russians/Assange didn't leak anything on them and the FBI wasn't investigating any of the Democrats who lost those seats. 

[The Unknown Poster]

Damn it, I just prepared a post in a new thread.  Glad to see the lockdown lifted here.  Dont over-moderate.

2 hours ago, IC Khari said:

The fact they put a person in the position to represent their party who had at least 3 active investigations going on simultaneously (Clinton foundation, Benghazi, and personal server/emails) had nothing to do with people being turned off? Let's see, I've lost count ... It was Comey, then it wasn't, then it was, then it wasn't, Russian hackers, Electoral college, yada yada yada. 

Multiple issues here.  Many of those investigations were run by republicans and found nothing of substance.  Clinton admitted her use of private e-mail server was wrong but it doesnt mean she actually committed any nefarious act.  I believe Colin Powell did the same thing.  Doesn't make it right, but it changed the narrative from an "entitled lefty" to "sometimes people do things for convenience when they shouldn't".

Clinton won her nomination.  If you feel she was not electable, then sure, that's a failure of the Democrats.  She lost.  So maybe they made the wrong choice.  Maybe Trump would have beat Sanders too.  Its moot.  She was the nominee.

The massive and clear momentum swing that happened as a result of Comey's unethical and potentially illegal acts cannot be denied.  The election was close, despite Trump's assertion that he won a landslide.  He didn't.  I saw some stat that had the difference in electoral college came down to 37,000 votes (or something like that) and ofcourse, Hilary won the popular vote by a significant margin.  So the FBI gaming the election could have been the difference.  And yeah, maybe Benghazi would have been the difference.  Maybe if Hilary hadn't gotten the flu, it would have made the difference.  Who knows. 

Regarding Russian hackers, again, unless you discount the intelligence community, it was very likely a fact,.  People generally misunderstand the "hacking".  It wasn't hacking into voting machines and adjusting votes.  It was hacking into emails and collecting damning emails (or what they felt would be damning) and strategically releasing them.  Supposedly they had damning emails about Trump too...but the plan was to screw Clinton.  Regardless, its worth an investigation, no?

2 hours ago, IC Khari said:

This is my advice for some of the cry baby far lefters down south ... 

So what advice to those of us who are "right"?  I've been pointing this out for ages.  Too many people get stuck in their left vs right ideas and it doesnt matter if Satan himself was the nominee, you'd still support your candidate and make excuses for their BS.

Im a "right" who wanted Clinton to win.  Something about Trump disqualified him.  Period.  (In my opinion).  And this game of whataboutism doesnt change that.

[kelownabomberfan]

17 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

  I saw some stat that had the difference in electoral college came down to 37,000 votes (or something like that)

I believe that Nanci Pelosi's daughter said that it was something like 80,000 votes.  Pretty close.  Reminds me of the 1960 election.

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, kelownabomberfan said:

I believe that Nanci Pelosi's daughter said that it was something like 80,000 votes.  Pretty close.  Reminds me of the 1960 election.

Very indicative of the deep divide in the US.

[Jacquie]

3 hours ago, IC Khari said:

The fact they put a person in the position to represent their party who had at least 3 active investigations going on simultaneously (Clinton foundation, Benghazi, and personal server/emails) had nothing to do with people being turned off? Let's see, I've lost count ... It was Comey, then it wasn't, then it was, then it wasn't, Russian hackers, Electoral college, yada yada yada. 

IIRC there were no active investigations of Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation during the election.

[IC Khari]

Just now, Jacquie said:

IIRC there were no active investigations of Benghazi or the Clinton Foundation during the election.

Definitely before for Benghazi but there was talk about the Clinton Foundation during the election (maybe regarding emails etc can't recall). Again not sure about the timeline but it probably soured a few voters.

[The Unknown Poster]

17 hours ago, IC Khari said:

Definitely before for Benghazi but there was talk about the Clinton Foundation during the election (maybe regarding emails etc can't recall). Again not sure about the timeline but it probably soured a few voters.

So, chatter about the Clinton foundation soured voters but the bigoted and sexist things Trump said/did plus the fact he was actually being sued didnt sour voters?  I mean, sure, Trump's supporters obviously didnt care.  But Clinton was cruising a few weeks before the election.  The FBI thing was the big bomb being dropped that caused the reversal in momentum.  Even Trump and his team thought they had lost the election until that point.

[Goalie]

This election was never NEVER as close as the media made it out to be. I don't like Trump... I don't like Hillary but if I'm American and voting that day... I vote Trump because I'm tired of the BS going on in Washington DC. I see a career politician a member of the swamp so to speak and I see a guy who regardless of his issues is not a part of the swamp. I vote for Trump because like lots of Americans I want change. This was about change. Trump = Change and I don't really like him but I get why ppl voted for him. I get why he won. Will that change be better than the last 8 years?  It remains to be seen. Trump has issues... hillary had issues but right now Trump actually deserves a chance to see what he can do. All these people have skeletons in their closets... every politician lies... they all are all talk and no action. Will trump be the same? Maybe but just maybe he will actually MAGA. 

Edited December 21, 2016 by Goalie

[The Unknown Poster]

10 minutes ago, Goalie said:

This election was never NEVER as close as the media made it out to be. I don't like Trump... I don't like Hillary but if I'm American and voting that day... I vote Trump because I'm tired of the BS going on in Washington DC. I see a career politician a member of the swamp so to speak and I see a guy who regardless of his issues is not a part of the swamp. I vote for Trump because like lots of Americans I want change. This was about change. Trump = Change and I don't really like him but I get why ppl voted for him. I get why he won. Will that change be better than the last 8 years?  It remains to be seen. Trump has issues... hillary had issues but right now Trump actually deserves a chance to see what he can do. All these people have skeletons in their closets... every politician lies... they all are all talk and no action. Will trump be the same? Maybe but just maybe he will actually MAGA. 

The election was very close actually.

Anyone who voted for Trump to 'drain the swamp' got taken in and Im surprised so many were so foolish.  If they voted for him because they believe in what he believes in, at least thats relevant if repugnant.  My opinion as a right-wing supporter who was open minded to Trump was that he simply disqualified himself.  There comes a point when you have to stop holding your nose and voting for whomever your party tells you to and decided where the line is.

For many Trump supporters, there was no line.  Because they want a whiter America.  Because they love celebrity. 

Does he deserve a chance?  Sure.  He's the President.  True belief in democracy requires Americans to respect the office and support the position.  Protest if you want, peacefully.  And use your vote to make change. 

Earlier in the thread there was a brief discussion about left vs right.  Both have their share of lugnuts.  I've always felt that right wing people embrace the mantra "I might disagree with what you say but will fight to the death your right to say it" whereas lefts feel if you disagree then your position is wrong and not worth fighting for at all.  (I feel this is very true in Canadian politics).  And I think a lot of "rights" got sick of being told they were wrong and wanted it to stick it to the left.

Protest votes are fine.  But what made me hope for Hilary was that, as I said, Trump disqualified himself in my opinion.  So it wasn't a protest the establishment option to me.  it was one candidate option.

[sweep the leg]

16 minutes ago, Goalie said:

I vote Trump because I'm tired of the BS going on in Washington DC. I see a career politician a member of the swamp so to speak and I see a guy who regardless of his issues is not a part of the swamp. I vote for Trump because like lots of Americans I want change. This was about change. Trump = Change

What changes are you talking about? Also, could you define what the swamp is.

[kelownabomberfan]

11 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

For many Trump supporters, there was no line.  Because they want a whiter America.  Because they love celebrity. 

 

What about misogyny?  I am being serious here.  I still remember meeting an Iowa Democrat (he told me he was a Democrat, and from Iowa) in Vegas and asking him why in 2008 the Iowa Democrats voted for a relatively unknown guy named Obama in the primaries over a well-known famous Hillary Clinton, and he told me with a straight face "I am ready for an African American president and I think it is time.  But I ain't going to be told what to do by a woman".  And this was a Democrat saying this.  I was pretty shocked.

Edited December 21, 2016 by kelownabomberfan

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, kelownabomberfan said:

What about misogyny?  I am being serious here.  I still remember asking an Iowa Democrat why in 2008 they voted for a relatively unknown guy named Obama in the primaries over a well-known famous Hillary Clinton, and he told me with a straight face "I am ready for an African American president and I think it is time.  But I ain't going to be told what to do by a woman".  And this was Democrat saying this.  I was pretty shocked.

I agree.  I was actually surprised by this during the election.  The "***** factor" was there for sure.  People were more accepting of a black man then a white woman.  It will be 1000 years before there is a black woman President at this rate.  Its a women thing though.  Many black voters supported Obama because he was black (regardless of his actual policies).  But Hilary didnt get the sisterhood vote.

During the OJ trial, one of the things that hurt the DA was the women on the jury looked at the strong, smart female prosecutor and decided she was a ***** and they didnt like her.  Hate to say "women are catty" because that in itself seems sexist.  But I think there is something to it.  Even in my own workplace where there is clear sexism, I've seen female employees defend the sexism because "well she's a *****".  Sad but true.

Many women like a woman who stands by her man.  But they loath a woman who stands in front of her man.  its why they love the style and grace of most first ladies but when they start making their own name they feel they should "know their place".

Edited December 21, 2016 by The Unknown Poster