2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

The Talking Bread

Harry Angstrom wrote: »

3 things you thought you'd never see happen:

President Donald Trump
UK leave EU
Ireland beat All Blacks

Leicester winning PL, in my opinion genuinely trumped all of those. And by a fair distance!

CMOTDibbler

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Leicester winning PL, in my opinion genuinely trumped all of those. And by a fair distance!

I see what you did there

Well done!

4068ac1elhodqr

Nostradamus may have been on to something:

“The great shameless, audacious bawler,
He will be elected governor of the army:
The boldness of his contention,
The bridge broken, the city faint from fear. ”

The masculine woman will exert herself to the north
She will annoy nearly all of Europe and the rest of the world.
Two failures will put her in such an imbalance
That both life and death will strengthen Eastern Europe

Letters are found in the queen's chests,
No signature and no name of the author.
The ruse will conceal the offers;
so that they do not know who the lover is.

The Talking Bread

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The Talking Bread wrote: »

Leicester winning PL, in my opinion genuinely trumped all of those. And by a fair distance!

I see what you did there

Well done!

Genuinely and I swear would have used that exact turn of phrase regardless of Trump! It's a popular phrase!

devnull

Hillary did campaign often with the slogan "Love Trumps Hate."

Good of her to do his promotion of hate for him

Arytonblue

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Yeah, I read that and thought it was well constructed. Certainly turned out that way.

Low turnout has to have been a factor too. Less than 50% voted which I think is the lowest since 1996 and only the second lowest since 1924.

That's a very important point and one of the few good insights I've seen today on this thread. I imagine it will take a long while before the turnout from '08 is bettered, dislike for both candidates, a general fatigue from an awful campaign was always going to favour Trump I think.

Having said that there has to be some perspective here. Outside of the Midwest, Clinton performed exactly as most had predicted, swept the West and Northeast, won Colorado and Nevada, after an early scare won Virginia and nationally will likely(but barely) win the popular vote. She was always likely to lose Ohio and Iowa, Florida and N.C. were complete toss ups, so the true puzzles are Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

I did a pretty rudimentary analysis of each state and no doubt Trump managed to flip several rural and suburban counties, but that was never going to be enough to win all three. The key for democrats in these states has always been massive turnout in cities like Philly, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Ann Arbour, Milwaukee and Madison. This is how they've won these states since '92 without fail and for whatever reason the turnout was just not there. The polls leading up to election day had her relatively comfortably ahead in all three, so for me it's not the 'secret Trump voter' factor, or even the supposed surge of the white blue collar vote, it was a lukewarm turnout from traditional Democrat strongholds that won the day. Now for this you could come with a myriad of reasons, but I thought it was worthwhile to showcase that this may not have been the overly dramatic shift in America that people are talking about.

Having said all that I still can't believe it.:eek:

Overheal

Jawgap wrote: »

You do understand the concept of 'sunk cost'?

Scrap the WTF-35 by all means, but Lockheed Martin won't be issuing refunds or credit notes.

Btw, how do you think Congress would react to the project being cancelled, plants bring closed, bases shut etc

Skunk cost is why the Navy's new omgwtf 80 mile range artillery shell now cost $800,000 per shot fired

https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__gizmodo.com_the-2Dus-2Dnavys-2Dnew-2Dwarship-2Dgun-2Dcosts-2D800-2D000-2Dto-2Dfire-2D1788656227&d=CwMFaQ&c=Ngd-ta5yRYsqeUsEDgxhcqsYYY1Xs5ogLxWPA_2Wlc4&r=yBvNWbo4xzd-ELH2Xzvv4e6MV9R09DJQyVy49vJuZ2c&m=UNCtMcBBEdw-z7xEVFisYwgfj9mlWS1KanPQmIPqLyk&s=iMHwrkqGmK9Lx_0T7ULG1BT3j1nx1Y7zqrqq-E_GSB0&e=

The Talking Bread

Tbh, I am shocked Clinton team couldn't find any more "dirt" on Trump. After 70 years living that sort of life of controversy, his team done a great job covering a lot of stuff up. Whether personal, business wise or politically wise. I don't think they used his NRA affiliation much to their advantage either.
In some ways Trump is a saint of a politician compared to others, past and present.

TheDoctor

So who wants to start the 2020 thread?

marienbad

Can I ask our American friends now that the GOP have swept the board for their thoughts after this extraordinary night ?

The Talking Bread

TheDoctor wrote: »

So who wants to start the 2020 thread?

Overheal

marienbad wrote: »

Can I ask our American friends now that the GOP have swept the board for their thoughts after this extraordinary night ?

"I should start a word file to document how he tears apart the country play by play"

TheOven

marienbad wrote: »

Can I ask our American friends now that the GOP have swept the board for their thoughts after this extraordinary night ?

They are too busy pulling themselves up by the bootstraps so they can afford healthcare.

Sam Russell

Last time a party had all four levers of power in America was in 1928. (POTUS, SCOTUS, Senate and House).

Remind me, what happened in 1929?

Follow Joe Kennedy's advice - and sell, sell, sell. Go into cash or Gold and keep it all under the bed next to your assault rifle.

Jawgap

marienbad wrote: »

Can I ask our American friends now that the GOP have swept the board for their thoughts after this extraordinary night ?

Lived there for a while and I'm a naturalised citizen (dual Irish / US)......gave serious consideration to renouncing my US citizenship! But then thought about it some more and decided worse case it's only 8 years max and renouncing is effectively forever!

Had thought about it before to get out from under the filing requirements of the Foreign Tax Compliance legislation, but it costs over $2k to process.

I'm glad I'm not living there any more (which is weird because normally I do miss the place) and worried about my friends and family who still live there, for reasons to do with healthcare, education and gun control - although most of them live in and around Massachusetts and Connecticut where state legislate may act to mitigate the worst excesses of whatever a Trump administration might attempt to inflict on the country.

Fr Tod Umptious

Arytonblue wrote: »

That's a very important point and one of the few good insights I've seen today on this thread. I imagine it will take a long while before the turnout from '08 is bettered, dislike for both candidates, a general fatigue from an awful campaign was always going to favour Trump I think.

Having said that there has to be some perspective here. Outside of the Midwest, Clinton performed exactly as most had predicted, swept the West and Northeast, won Colorado and Nevada, after an early scare won Virginia and nationally will likely(but barely) win the popular vote. She was always likely to lose Ohio and Iowa, Florida and N.C. were complete toss ups, so the true puzzles are Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

I did a pretty rudimentary analysis of each state and no doubt Trump managed to flip several rural and suburban counties, but that was never going to be enough to win all three. The key for democrats in these states has always been massive turnout in cities like Philly, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Ann Arbour, Milwaukee and Madison. This is how they've won these states since '92 without fail and for whatever reason the turnout was just not there. The polls leading up to election day had her relatively comfortably ahead in all three, so for me it's not the 'secret Trump voter' factor, or even the supposed surge of the white blue collar vote, it was a lukewarm turnout from traditional Democrat strongholds that won the day. Now for this you could come with a myriad of reasons, but I thought it was worthwhile to showcase that this may not have been the overly dramatic shift in America that people are talking about.

Having said all that I still can't believe it.:eek:

Kerry had the same problem in 2004.
A lot of students and younger people who said they were supporting him just did not turn up on the day.
It happens all over the world, you can always rely on older generations to turn out more than younger ones.

And Hillary was also relying on a African Americans too which did not help, seeing as they were unlikely to turn out in as big a numbers as the previous two elections when there was an African American candidate.

There was am interesting piece on the BBC last night (before any results came in).
Since 1980 the racial makeup of the country has seen whites go from 80 something % to 60 something % and the % of blacks and Hispanics increase.
However in Ohio the demographics are much closer to 1980 levels than the national average, and they correctly point out that this would be to Trumps advantage.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

Can I ask our American friends now that the GOP have swept the board for their thoughts after this extraordinary night ?

I’ll preface my answer with the fact that I am a Republican, Conservative, was a member of the Tea Party in its day, and one of sound mind and judgement. :P

It is good to control the executive, and both the Senate and House, and probably get through most of Trump's least controversial SCOTUS picks.

The GOP majority can get things done if necessary if the Democrats refuse to work with them. But I don’t think they will act in a vacuum as they have shown their willingness to work with Democrats on much of the legislation that has come out, since the GOP captured both the House and Senate. Sure there are a couple of topics that aren’t getting done but those are the ones of complete ideological differences. And I'm glad Congress has been recently working much better than it has been in the past. I can accept some compromise, but I am still pissed at how much spending Congress is allowing to happen.

The bigger question is will the Republicans in Congress work with Trump? That is still an unknown at this point.

26000 Elephants

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That swamp isn't getting drained any time soon.

Meet the new Boss -
Same as the old Boss.

Wont get fooled again - The Who

Jawgap

Amerika wrote: »

I’ll preface my answer with the fact that I am a Republican, Conservative, was a member of the Tea Party in its day, and one of sound mind and judgement. :P

......

I should've said I registered as an independent after I naturalised, but almost always voted Democrat.

4068ac1elhodqr

TheDoctor wrote: »

So who wants to start the 2020 thread?

1. Zuckerberg 'facepage'
2. 'Arnie' 'terminator'
3. Will Smith 'independence day'
4. Demis Hassabis 'the AI guy'

Take your pick, waiting for 1000/1 to appear for the facepage teenager, after all he'll know what's on the casting voters minds, from reading everyone's selfie blurbs.

TheOven

Amerika wrote: »

I’ll preface my answer with the fact that I am a Republican, Conservative, was a member of the Tea Party in its day, and one of sound mind and judgement. :P

It is good to control the executive, and both the Senate and House, and probably get through most of Trump's least controversial SCOTUS picks.

The GOP majority can get things done if necessary if the Democrats refuse to work with them. But I don’t think they will act in a vacuum as they have shown their willingness to work with Democrats on much of the legislation that has come out, since the GOP captured both the House and Senate. Sure there are a couple of topics that aren’t getting done but those are the ones of complete ideological differences. And I'm glad Congress has been recently working much better than it has been in the past. I can accept some compromise, but I am still pissed at how much spending Congress is allowing to happen.

The bigger question is will the Republicans in Congress work with Trump? That is still an unknown at this point.

What? Are these the same guys that refused to consider a supreme judge pick unless one of them put it forward?

briany

(January 2017)

4Chan: AHAHAHAHAH! Sipping on those Liberal tears!! Whites win again!!

(January 2018, Trump enacts legislation that enforces unfairly priced data caps.)

4Chan: KILL HIM

Jawgap

Finnley Quaint Wineglass wrote: »

1. Zuckerberg 'facepage'
2. 'Arnie' 'terminator'
3. Will Smith 'independence day'
4. Demis Hassabis 'the AI guy'

Take your pick, waiting for 1000/1 to appear for the facepage teenager, after all he'll know what's on the casting voters minds, from reading everyone's selfie blurbs.

Can't be Arnie - he's foreign born

Amerika

TheOven wrote: »

What? Are these the same guys that refused to consider a supreme judge pick unless one of them put it forward?

Yes. That is one of those main ideological differences. If Hillary would have won I have no doubt they would have rushed to confirm Merrick Garland.

TheOven

Amerika wrote: »

Yes. That is one of those main ideological differences. If Hillary would have won I have no doubt they would have rushed to confirm Merrick Garland.

That's not what McCain said.

We were told it is up to the next president to decide first, confirming Garland would have just highlighted further their lies.

Amerika

TheOven wrote: »

That's not what McCain said.

We were told it is up to the next president to decide first, confirming Garland would have just highlighted further their lies.

McCain and I haven't always seen eye to eye.

TheDoctor

TheDoctor wrote: »

So who wants to start the 2020 thread?

We have to do the Donald Trump impeachment thread first.

aloyisious

TheOven wrote: »

What? Are these the same guys that refused to consider a supreme judge pick unless one of them put it forward?

Don is NOT one for feeling under obligation to anyone and the Republicans know that now so I'd imagine they might find him non-cooperative when he chooses. He's no politician but some-one on a mission to fix what he sees as broken, US industry and commerce due to treaties and deals the US and business is signed-up to. He sees part of that is the lure of low taxation.

The other side of the coin is that low taxation, in the minds of a powerful minority, means less federal and state spending money in the kitty they control so they probably won't like Don's ideas on job creation through lower taxation = more spending money in the pockets of spenders and less under their control in federal budget and state treasuries. They haven't got the patience to wait for the economy to pick up and tax money to start flowing in from a boom as Don plans. They'll work with their opposite numbers in the house and senate as they'll see it in their interests to try and rein in the Enfant terrible they let loose.

I reckon Don, though he will probably be the nominator of future SC judges, I can't see him letting any Christian religious group telling him who to choose. He's too much his own man for that. Besides which, the pissed-off public suffering under taxation and job losses put him in the job, not some committed Christian group or vested political Washington set.

TheOven

aloyisious wrote: »

Don is NOT one for feeling under obligation to anyone and the Republicans know that now so I'd imagine they might find him non-cooperative when he chooses. He's no politician but some-one on a mission to fix what he sees as broken, US industry and commerce due to treaties and deals the US and business is signed-up to. He sees part of that is the lure of low taxation.

The other side of the coin is that low taxation, in the minds of a powerful minority, means less federal and state spending money in the kitty they control so they probably won't like Don's ideas on job creation through lower taxation = more spending money in the pockets of spenders and less under their control in federal budget and state treasuries. They haven't got the patience to wait for the economy to pick up and tax money to start flowing in from a boom as Don plans. They'll work with their opposite numbers in the house and senate as they'll see it in their interests to try and rein in the Enfant terrible they let loose.

The republicans have full control, they love trickle down economics. There will be no issue getting what they want.

marienbad

Amerika wrote: »

Yes. That is one of those main ideological differences. If Hillary would have won I have no doubt they would have rushed to confirm Merrick Garland.

How do you feel about an even more conservative Supreme Court ?

PopePalpatine

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

We have to do the Donald Trump impeachment thread first.

How fortunate for Trump that he's picked a VP that's even worse than himself.

TheOven wrote: »

The republicans have full control, they love trickle down economics. There will be no issue getting what they want.

The last time the GOP controlled the Presidency, both Houses of Congress and the SCOTUS was 1928. Guess what happened next?

seamus

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Trump would be throwing toys if he were in this position.

Honestly, even though I think he's one of the most disgusting individuals in modern history, I don't think he would.

He's into crossing the line and "speaking his mind" (read: saying what people apparently want to hear), but he's not that out of touch.

Any concession speech on his part I imagine would likely be along the same lines as his winning speech about a battle hard fought, but it would likely stop short of calling Hillary "my president", or absolving any suggestion of vote rigging. Nevertheless he wouldn't make any accusations of it, it would be a relatively cold but measured one.

He still has businesses to run (badly) and an ego to massage. A complete blow up and a rant about vote rigging and such would hurt that badly.

Itssoeasy

I'm listening back to the first hour of the morning Ireland from this morning and a point was made that trump might be the republican president elect but he wouldn't be a conservative republican by definition.

Trump even though the congress will be GOP controlled he will have to learn how to work with congress which I hadn't thought much of.

aloyisious

TheOven wrote: »

The republicans have full control, they love trickle down economics. There will be no issue getting what they want.

I added in a 3rd para to my original.

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How fortunate for Trump that he's picked a VP that's even worse than himself.

Ah hopefully the CIA will pick him off one way or another, if all these internet conspiracy theories about the establishment are to be believed.

Then Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House of Representatives can install himself in the White House.

I can't believe I am allowing myself to dream of Paul Ryan a Kilkenny man in the White House.

devnull

27 Years ago today the Berlin Wall came down.

Now Trump is building another Wall.

Shows you how messed up this world has become.

Worst thing is the majority of Trump supporters have no idea why they voted for him apart from a bunch of soundbites.

Suryavarman

Akrasia wrote: »

My prediction for next election, is Elon Musk running as an independent against Trump and Michelle Obama on the Democrat ticket.

How do you think this is at all possible? Just because Hillary Clinton decided to enter politics doesn't mean every FLOTUS does the same. Clinton is very much the exception rather than the rule in this regard. I thought it was well known that Michelle Obama has no interest in being involved in politics and was even against Barack running for POTUS.

Amerika

marienbad wrote: »

How do you feel about an even more conservative Supreme Court ?

I want a judge that believed that the ordinary meaning of the US Constitution should govern, be opposed to the idea of a living constitution, and opposed to the idea that the judiciary can modify the meaning of constitutional provisions to adapt them to changing times.

CMOTDibbler

Amerika wrote: »

The bigger question is will the Republicans in Congress work with Trump? That is still an unknown at this point.

That's the one that I'm interested in. It's not a given considering Trump's preopensity to going on solo runs.

Stheno

Amerika wrote: »

I want a judge that believed that the ordinary meaning of the US Constitution should govern, be opposed to the idea of a living constitution, and opposed to the idea that the judiciary can modify the meaning of constitutional provisions to adapt them to changing times.

Seriously? You want to be governed by something hundreds of years old?

aloyisious

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm listening back to the first hour of the morning Ireland from this morning and a point was made that trump might be the republican president elect but he wouldn't be a conservative republican by definition.

Trump even though the congress will be GOP controlled he will have to learn how to work with congress which I hadn't thought much of.

God forbid that he might change party again and find like-minded fellows in the Democratic Party partly because he's his own man, knows his own mind and will want his own way. Politics makes for strange bed-fellows.

The new year and what he does ref HRC and her "Criminal Acts" might be an indicator on whether he's prepared to work with the democrats. He's a man who knows a good deal when he sees it and will fight anyone all the way to get it.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiww66ozJzQAhVpK8AKHcvCC7UQFggwMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.quora.com%2FCan-a-US-president-change-his-party-affiliation-after-being-elected&usg=AFQjCNEw-MZvrkHLqTXHG0vP36J6WecK8A

Suryavarman

Suryavarman wrote: »

How do you think this is at all possible? Just because Hillary Clinton decided to enter politics doesn't mean every FLOTUS does the same.

That's so obviously not why people are saying it.

Nobody wants Laura Bush or her mother-in-law to be President.

People are inspired by what they feel is Michelle Obama's dignity and sincerity, and her ability to connect with people as a natural leader. Unfortunately, she's probably too dignified and sincere to be a US President. So I agree she won't ever run. But people aren't saying it just because she's the First Lady.

TheOven

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How fortunate for Trump that he's picked a VP that's even worse than himself.

The last time the GOP controlled the Presidency, both Houses of Congress and the SCOTUS was 1928. Guess what happened next?

Im sure it was a period of prosperity for the working class.

aloyisious wrote: »

I added in a 3rd para to my original.

He has already been provided with his SC picks. Establishment GOP will be covering the details of policy seeing as Trump is still figuring out if the wall is physical or metaphorical. People can pretend they voted anti establishment but Trump said he would surround himself by the best, and to him the best is the GOP establishment.

Amerika

Stheno wrote: »

Seriously? You want to be governed by something hundreds of years old?

You betcha. The Founding Fathers were some of the greatest collection of minds the world has ever witnessed. And besides, I liked being governed by Ronald Reagan. :P

ancapailldorcha

Stheno wrote: »

Seriously? You want to be governed by something hundreds of years old?

I've never understood this sometimes near slavish devotion to the constitution and the founding fathers. The founding fathers are often mentioned as if they're the definitive authority in all matters akin to a Catholic mentioning the pope's opinion on something.

CMOTDibbler

TheOven wrote: »

He has already been provided with his SC picks. Establishment GOP will be covering the details of policy seeing as Trump is still figuring out if the wall is physical or metaphorical. People can pretend they voted anti establishment but Trump said he would surround himself by the best, and to him the best is the GOP establishment.

Is it? He's had a go at pretty much the whole GOP establishment.

TheOven

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've never understood this sometimes near slavish devotion to the constitution and the founding fathers. The founding fathers are often mentioned as if they're the definitive authority in all matters akin to a Catholic mentioning the pope's opinion on something.

They love some of those amendments though.

TheOven

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

Is it? He's had a go at pretty much the whole GOP establishment.

Except those who stayed with him. The GOP will fall into line.

Brian?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I've never understood this sometimes near slavish devotion to the constitution and the founding fathers. The founding fathers are often mentioned as if they're the definitive authority in all matters akin to a Catholic mentioning the pope's opinion on something.

It's a quasi religious cult. Even down to fact that it's never written as founding fathers but capitalised as "Founding Fathers ". Implying divinity.

Funny you should use the words "slavish devotion" as well. This group of men who are imbued with such all seeing wisdom were almost all slave owners. "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...", not the ones we own and keep as property though!

26000 Elephants

Amerika wrote: »

[I am] opposed to the idea that the judiciary can modify the meaning of constitutional provisions to adapt them to changing times.

Wow. Sounds like Sharia law would be just up your street. How would you look with a beard?