Trump General Discussion III

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Why? Because it's the way the electorate works. If they're not going to change votes for Trump, why do it for Clinton? All it did in my eyes was reinforce the idea that she didn't have a lot of support on her own side. It's petty and stupid.

I would love for the voting to be proportional, we already know that. But I don't see how this achieved anything but further proof the division in the party cost the election in some part.
 
I'm quite pleased with the fact that we saw a measurable amount of faithless electors. Unfortunately they weren't all for my team, but it's nice to see that these folks acknowledge that the system isn't designed for them to be meaningless.
 
The DNC and Hillary did conspire aginst Sanders on her way to the nomination. So defecting from her is not that surprising. This is now part of her 2016 history.
 
This is a bit silly. I'm not sure why progressives were obligated to back Clinton anyway.

There's still so much of a whiff of entitlement with some liberals, like it was a catastrophic tragedy that Hillary didn't become president - almost as if she was destined for the presidency or something.




A Trump presidency is a catastrophic tragedy.
 
The DNC and Hillary did conspire aginst Sanders on her way to the nomination. So defecting from her is not that surprising. This is now part of her 2016 history.



The DNC's actual power is wildly overestimated in the minds of many Sanders supporters -- if the people wanted Sanders, if they found his tax-and-spend arguments compelling, he would have won the primaries. He was given plenty of debates to make his case.

The mild level of annoyance seen in the DNC emails and leaked to you by Putin came after the NY primaries where a large, diverse population (not the nearly all-white caucuses) voted decisively for Hillary. Their annoyance was directly due to the impossibleness of the Bernie Math, and the distraction it created from the general election. The people who should have been fired were.
 
The DNC's actual power is wildly overestimated in the minds of many Sanders supporters -- if the people wanted Sanders, if they found his tax-and-spend arguments compelling, he would have won the primaries. He was given plenty of debates to make his case.

The mild level of annoyance seen in the DNC emails and leaked to you by Putin came after the NY primaries where a large, diverse population (not the nearly all-white caucuses) voted decisively for Hillary. Their annoyance was directly due to the impossibleness of the Bernie Math, and the distraction it created from the general election. The people who should have been fired were.
Ding.

New York was a tipping point. If Bernie had won, he could have taken the nomination with the momentum he would have gained. He wasn't an unknown anymore, the debates weren't on Saturday night at 10pm... he was front and center and holding huge rallies all over the city. I watched one from my apartment. He was at the absolute peak of his popularity, in a state with the biggest city in the country, that happens to be a liberal stronghold.

And he got crushed.

DNC didn't crush him. The electorate did.
 
Trump's budget director USA fucking joke! This whole thing is a fucking joke.

I see that many are already having buyer's remorse, that's what you get when you follow anger and hate instead of listening to logic.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
All of this is going to be small potatoes compared to what is going to happen with the climate.

It's really sad that we have thrown away millions of people's future because they refuse to believe in it. Or maybe because something like 40-45% of the population actually would welcome the suffering because their belief in the "end times"

I think we can survive Trump's economic policies, we can bounce back from civil rights injustices, but we won't bounce back from the climate.
 
Trump is really a great example of the right man at the right time, he got very lucky in that sense.

Look at what is happening in Europe - I would be pretty surprised if Angela Merkel manages to stay in power after the next elections in Germany. I have never particularly cared for her brand of politics for a number of reasons so it isn't as if I feel a great loss at all, but the alternative will probably be more reactionary and more right-wing.
 
I dunno. I think it sends a good message about the way of our shitty system. A republic that ignores every important part of a republic and guns for a populist system.

People in Washington overwhelmingly wanted Sanders. Our current system has electors for a reason. I don't think they intended upon "kicking Clinton in the teeth." They're making use of the system. It's very clearly after-the-fact.
exactly. i also look at it like this: she wasn't going to win either way, so what is the big deal if four electors vote their conscience (not saying that's my opinion, but that was the phrase used for voting for bernie and/or jill during this entire election season)? obviously at this point voting for bernie (he only got one vote, ftr) didn't matter, just like the votes for powell (he got more votes than anyone else that the faithless electors voted for, why no outrage about that? it doesn't bother me, but the constant finger-pointing at sanders, who didn't even ask or want any electors to vote for him is beyond tiresome) didn't matter. frankly, since election day, i've come to two conclusions:

1. i can't believe the democrat party doesn't see their loss as a sign that they need to majorly shake up the way they run things (maybe people do on a smaller scale but obama himself doesn't seem to think there's a problem)
2. i'm happy there was such an "unpresidented" amount of faithless electors. that, to me, kinda proves point #1. and i think both political parties need to be shaken up. i'm sure all but one or two posters on here would agree with me that the republican party is in a state of disarray not seen in my lifetime at least, if not since arguably the 1800s.
 
two things are clear from this election.

1) both parties need to be blown up, preferably into at least 4 pieces. clearly both parties have deep divides. the republican party might seem all happy go lucky now because they actually won, but the win is only masking the deep rooted divisions in the party.

2) it's time for another constitutional convention and a shift away from the two-party, electoral college ways of old and on to a system of proportional representation. in a nation this vast, to tell people they need to fit into a cookie cutter two party platform is insane.
 
two things are clear from this election.

1) both parties need to be blown up, preferably into at least 4 pieces. clearly both parties have deep divides. the republican party might seem all happy go lucky now because they actually won, but the win is only masking the deep rooted divisions in the party.

2) it's time for another constitutional convention and a shift away from the two-party, electoral college ways of old and on to a system of proportional representation. in a nation this vast, to tell people they need to fit into a cookie cutter two party platform is insane.

This makes absolute sense to my ignorant antipodean brain. But presumably it won't happen as it would depower the two major parties. And they wouldn't allow it.
And that's the problem with many Western democracies right now. They seem to be party-first, not pragmatically nation-first or, when it comes to climate change, planet-first.
Often times it seems only huge upheaval (ie suffering and carnage) has been enough to create proper change. I really hope that isn't the case this time.

Sent from my SM-G920I using U2 Interference mobile app
 
This makes absolute sense to my ignorant antipodean brain. But presumably it won't happen as it would depower the two major parties. And they wouldn't allow it.
And that's the problem with many Western democracies right now. They seem to be party-first, not pragmatically nation-first or, when it comes to climate change, planet-first.
Often times it seems only huge upheaval (ie suffering and carnage) has been enough to create proper change. I really hope that isn't the case this time.

Sent from my SM-G920I using U2 Interference mobile app
I unfortunately think we're in a slow decline towards chaos. Maybe not so slow.

I mean we just elected a reality TV host as President. We really don't have very far to go.

We're truly fucked.
 
as we've been saying: white supremacy is the beating heart of the Trump GOP.

In the segment, O’Reilly accused liberals of wanting to abolish the Electoral College because “the left thinks white working-class voters must be marginalized.” He claimed that ending the Electoral College would allow presidential candidates to focus their campaigns on big states and cities filled with minority voters, while letting them ignore rural areas with white voters.

“Talking Points believes this is all about race,” O’Reilly claimed. “The left sees white privilege in America as an oppressive force that must be done away with.” He later added, “The left wants power taken away from the white establishment. They want a profound change in the way America is run. Taking voting power away from the white precincts is the quickest way to do that.”

Along the way, you might expect some sort of “to be sure” paragraph to clarify that of course O’Reilly believes the votes of minority voters in California are equal to white rural voters in the Midwest.

But it never comes. He instead mocked the idea of fighting against white privilege. “Very few commentators will tell you that the heart of liberalism in America today is based on race. It permeates almost every issue,” O’Reilly said. “The liberal media tries to sell that all day long — so-called white privilege bad, diversity good.” He never elaborates on this point, leading one to draw the conclusion that he doesn’t buy what he argued the liberal media is selling.

The segment ends with O’Reilly’s message loud and clear: White privilege and the white establishment are fine, and it’s good that our Electoral College props up white rural voters over minority voters in urban centers. As it turns out, O’Reilly does have a point that the Electoral College is a tool for maintaining a white-dominated status quo. But that he apparently sees that as an argument for keeping the Electoral College is terrifying.

http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/12/21/14035608/bill-oreilly-electoral-college-race
 
And tens of millions of Americans agree with him, it seems.
And that's the issue. If you have another Obama, who these Trump voters find abhorrent, you marginalise the O'Reillys of the US.
Never has it been more apparent, at least not since the civil war I guess, that there are really two nations trying to coexist in the US. Perhaps there always has been.
God knows what the answer is.
 
And tens of millions of Americans agree with him, it seems.
And that's the issue. If you have another Obama, who these Trump voters find abhorrent, you marginalise the O'Reillys of the US.
Never has it been more apparent, at least not since the civil war I guess, that there are really two nations trying to coexist in the US. Perhaps there always has been.
God knows what the answer is.


Could two nations be the answer? We have two states that aren't even connected to the mainland, so why couldn't we break us up into two separate nations?

Think it's pretty obvious how the lines would be drawn.

Of course the first act of the southern/red nation would be to ask for continuous AID from the Blue Coastal / Northern states.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
The DNC and Hillary did conspire aginst Sanders on her way to the nomination. So defecting from her is not that surprising. This is now part of her 2016 history.

Oh the irony of Monday. 5 faithless electors for Hillary. 2 for Trump.

Martin Sheen and Co. may have swayed the wrong crowd to Colin Powell, Bernie Sanders, and Faithful Spotted Eagle.
 
The DNC and Hillary did conspire against Sanders on her way to the nomination. So defecting from her is not that surprising. This is now part of her 2016 history.

Error: insufficient argument presented. No evidence or citations given.

Ok, I'll bite.

Why exactly did DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz resign when she did ?
 
Yeah I wouldn't say there was no evidence. Maybe "conspire" is a strong word, but certainly seemed like a systemic bias at the least.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom