2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Jimmy Garlic

ECO_Mental wrote: »

He won't grabbing young ones by the P***y any more either

Grab em by the pussy is a New York turn of phrase, not a literal statement.

BorneTobyWilde

Hate how Trump supports gloat and provoke the losing side. It was never about that, there was no right or wrong. They're all American.

Hillary lost
NH
by 2528 votes

MICH
by 11837

PA
by 68236

It looks a landslide victory for Trump in Electoral Votes, but the Democrats who thought they would take the higher ground and not vote for Hillary are today regretting their decision. The margin is so small in terms of votes.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/gvpBD
All she needed

alastair

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Grab em by the pussy is a New York turn of phrase, not a literal statement.

Oh please. It's really not. It was a literal boast.

ECO_Mental

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Grab em by the pussy is a New York turn of phrase, not a literal statement.

I don't know why I am wasting my time with this trolling, so what you are saying its that ........ Ah forget it....I'm out.. I'm sick of the crap excuses do you actually want me to believe this s**t. There you go, you won you got me mad

daithi7

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Hate how Trump supports gloat and provoke the losing side. It was never about that, there was no right or wrong. They're all American.

Hillary lost
NH
by 2528 votes

MICH
by 11837

PA
by 68236

It looks a landslide victory for Trump in Electoral Votes, but the Democrats who thought they would take the higher ground and not vote for Hillary are today regretting their decision. The margin is so small in terms of votes.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/gvpBD
All she needed

Yeah, tiny margins in huge electorates in fairness. She lost by a whisker, but she lost.

Terry Prone, , who has advised leading Irish Politicians & Political parties for over 40 years now and is ultra savvy, was on the radio earlier today, she made the interesting observation that in every campaign that she ever saw where a party definitely' knew' they were going to win, that every one those campaigns lost. With no exceptions.

So to add to your point, I think the HRC campaign really believed they were going to win 3-4 weeks out, and they convinced everyone that they were going to do so, which is a fatal flaw as it leads to all sorts of complacent voting practices, etc And as the savvy Prone points out that always ends in electoral failure.

P.s. I have to wonder how many of the current protestors now giving out about the Trump election win actually voted!?
I mean wouldn't it have been just easier to vote!?

m1ck007

Yea their protest should have been to vote for clinton but they didnt, so they should accept the majority decision that is to appoint trump as president which Seems to be forgotton

eire4

daithi7 wrote: »

Yeah, tiny margins in huge electorates in fairness. She lost by a whisker, but she lost.

Terry Prone, , who has advised leading Irish Politicians & Political parties for over 40 years now and is ultra savvy, was on the radio earlier today, she made the interesting observation that in every campaign that she ever saw where a party definitely' knew' they were going to win, that every one those campaigns lost. With no exceptions.

So to add to your point, I think the HRC campaign really believed they were going to win 3-4 weeks out, and they convinced everyone that they were going to do so, which is a fatal flaw as it leads to all sorts of complacent voting practices, etc And as the savvy Prone points out that always ends in electoral failure.

P.s. I have to wonder how many of the current protestors now giving out about the Trump election win actually voted!?
I mean wouldn't it have been just easier to vote!?

Indeed tiny margins. Again though election turnout was pathetic. 53% was the turnout. But nobody is talking about that again. I am sure there are various reasons why close to half of Americans did not bother to vote but right up there near the top if not the top of the list is the fact that Washington DC is a corrupt place where work is done on behalf of the wealthy and major corporations and the vast majority of Americans are just irrelevant to a large extent and that is what so many Americans think and why so many have simply checked out of a broken system that offers them next to nothing.

First Up

RobertKK wrote:

President-elect Trump being such an unreasonable person has said he is ready to compromise on Obamacare after his talks with President Obama.

President elect Trump isn't doing any compromising because he is so inclined. He is just being exposed to reality.

First Up

RobertKK wrote:

President-elect Trump being such an unreasonable person has said he is ready to compromise on Obamacare after his talks with President Obama.

President elect Trump isn't doing any compromising because he is so inclined. He is just being exposed to reality.

fran17

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Grab em by the pussy is a New York turn of phrase, not a literal statement.

Precisely,very similar to the FHRITP craze of late.

Suryavarman

Rjd2 wrote: »

I haven't read all the thread, but one thing I want to say the attacks on Johnson and Stein are deeply unfair, if I was American I simply would not have voted if it was only HC and DT on the ballot. Clinton was not entitled to those voters, she had to earn them and despite a very pro media, huge money and infrastructure behind her and a LOL opponent she absolutely failed.

The story of this defeat also needs to focus more on how awful HC was as a candidate rather than just blaming sexism, racism and 3rd party candidates.

Anyhow with Johnson while he was liberal socially, he still would have drawn plenty of republican supporters as plenty of conservative magazines etc chose to endorse him.

An example of this was Ethan Coen ranting on the NY Times. :pac:


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/opinion/sunday/2016-election-thank-you-notes.html

No major party nominee has ever been opposed to the values supposedly supported by the Libertarian and Green Parties as Donald Trump is.

If the so-called libertarians that voted for Gary Johnson actually cared about freedom they would have voted for Clinton in order to stop Donald Trump from winning as that was the only possible way to beat him. It shouldn't be a surprise that they didn't do that as the libertarian movement is more about advancing white male privilege as opposed to expanding freedom.

If the people that voted for Jill Stein actually cared about protecting and expanding every progressive and environmental protection policy enacted in the last 8 years then they would have voted for Clinton instead of electing the man that vows to undo every last one of them. It seems to be common among lefties to use their vote to signal how virtuous they are as opposed to advance the policies they support though.

Suryavarman

eire4 wrote: »

Indeed tiny margins. Again though election turnout was pathetic. 53% was the turnout. But nobody is talking about that again. I am sure there are various reasons why close to half of Americans did not bother to vote but right up there near the top if not the top of the list is the fact that Washington DC is a corrupt place where work is done on behalf of the wealthy and major corporations and the vast majority of Americans are just irrelevant to a large extent and that is what so many Americans think and why so many have simply checked out of a broken system that offers them next to nothing.

People didn't vote because corporations wouldn't leave them? Yeah, that makes sense.

Count Dooku

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Hate how Trump supports gloat and provoke the losing side.

up to 9/11 it was HRC supporters who were laughing all day by posting rubbish from 538

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

It was never about that, there was no right or wrong. They're all American.

Hillary lost
NH
by 2528 votes

MICH
by 11837

PA
by 68236

It looks a landslide victory for Trump in Electoral Votes, but the Democrats who thought they would take the higher ground and not vote for Hillary are today regretting their decision. The margin is so small in terms of votes.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/gvpBD
All she needed

taking in account how much money have been poured into her campaign and that nearly all media supported her - I would consider it as massive defeat

Jawgap

This is what a drained swamp looks like.

Not terribly shocking or surprising given his campaign rhetoric......and even in being tokenistic, he couldn't resist a bit of nepotism.....

https://twitter.com/georgeaylett/status/797531138403270656

https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/797497587398017026

Christy42

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/donald-trump-us-election-win-tweets-old-ironic-a7410906.html

I am curious as to why Donald no longer supports people marching to show their displeasure at an election result. Just can't figure it out.

Count Dooku

Jawgap wrote: »

This is what a drained swamp looks like.

Not terribly shocking or surprising given his campaign rhetoric......and even in being tokenistic, he couldn't resist a bit of nepotism.....

https://twitter.com/georgeaylett/status/797531138403270656

https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/797497587398017026

Just direct result that GOP left Trump on his own

B0jangles

Remember back in September Trump's Washington policy planning team quit because they didn't get paid and no-one in the campaign team was interested in what they were doing?

The Trump campaign built a large policy shop in Washington that has now largely melted away because of neglect, mismanagement and promises of pay that were never honored. Many of the team’s former members say the campaign leadership never took the Washington office seriously and let it wither away after squeezing it dry.

Donald Trump often brags about having experts and senior former officials advising him. Wednesday night in a forum on national security, he said, “We have admirals, we have generals, we have colonels. We have a lot of people that I respect.” It’s true that Trump is getting high-level policy advice on a regular basis from senior experts such as Rudy Giuliani and retired Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn. But Trump has never acknowledged the policy shop based in Washington that has been doing huge amounts of grunt work for months without recognition or compensation.

Since April, advisers never named in campaign press releases have been working in an Alexandria-based office, writing policy memos, organizing briefings, managing surrogates and placing op-eds. They put in long hours before and during the Republican National Convention to help the campaign look like a professional operation.

But in August, shortly after the convention, most of the policy shop’s most active staffers quit. Although they signed non-disclosure agreements, several of them told me on background that the Trump policy effort has been a mess from start to finish.

“It’s a complete disaster,” one disgruntled former adviser told me. “They use and abuse people. The policy office fell apart in August when the promised checks weren’t delivered.”

Three former members, all of whom quit in August, told me that as early as April they were promised financial compensation but were later told that they would have to work as volunteers. They say the leaders of the shop, Rick Dearborn and John Mashburn, told many staffers that money was on the way but then were unable to deliver. Dearborn is Sen. Jeff Sessions’s (R-Ala.) chief of staff, while Mashburn is the former chief of staff for Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C).

“I heard it from Dearborn, I heard it from Mashburn. It was understood that we would be paid. The campaign never discussed how much the pay would be. It was never in writing,” said one staffer, who quit last month. “There were some people who were treating it as a full-time job. I suspect that those people were quite astonished when the pay didn’t come through.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2016/09/08/inside-the-collapse-of-trumps-d-c-policy-shop/

Trump was not planning anything past the election, his team are now desparately trying to put together a policy plan that should have been completed months ago.

Even the new Trump transition website has large sections directly copy/pasted from a generic non-partisan group:

According to a Politico report, Trump’s transition website seems to have lifted some passages from the nonpartisan nonprofit the Center for Presidential Transition. The group is a project under the Partnership for Public Service, which was founded in 2001 to inspire and reward those who worked in the federal government.

At the bottom of Trump’s site GreatAgain.gov, appears a small note saying, “First Posted on Center for Presidential Transition.”

The citation might be enough to avoid any legal issues but it is a gray area in copyright law.

The first comes from a post “Help Wanted: 4,000 Presidential Appointments.” The text talks about a “chart below” — but there isn’t a chart. The Center’s website does have a graphic depicting positions that require Senate confirmation in the departments of Justice and State.

Another is from, “The Offices and Agencies Supporting the Transition,” which is the same page on the Center’s website. It even has a reference to “our own Center library” linking to the Center for Presidential Transition online resources page.

Both pages have a byline for the author on the Center’s website but that authorship is removed on Trump’s site.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-policy-portfolio-227919

They are so totally unprepared for this it'd be funny if it weren't so shameful.

B0jangles

Jawgap wrote: »

This is what a drained swamp looks like.

Not terribly shocking or surprising given his campaign rhetoric......and even in being tokenistic, he couldn't resist a bit of nepotism.....

https://twitter.com/georgeaylett/status/797531138403270656

https://twitter.com/foxnews/status/797497587398017026

A bit of nepotism?

A full 25% of his transition team are members of his family!

alastair

B0jangles wrote: »

A bit of nepotism?

A full 25% of his transition team are members of his family!

Great to see the era of political dynasty's being swept away. Drain that swamp etc.

Igotadose

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Grab em by the pussy is a New York turn of phrase, not a literal statement.

NYC born and raised. Never heard the phrase till Trump blurted it out.

My father his brothers my cousins all lifelong NYC'ers. My wife's family, too. And my mother's and all my uncles and cousins.

HS locker rooms, college in NYC. Never heard it. Heck, went to my fair share of go-go bars in my youth. Never heard it.

So, exactly what qualifies you to claim this? Other than, "I'm making things up because I can"

Dimwit.

Jawgap

Count Dooku wrote: »

Just direct result that GOP left Trump on his own

So it's the RNC's fault h that they are the only people available? Or he's engaging in 'business as usual' by appointing donors and early supporters to key positions?

ancapailldorcha

Suryavarman wrote: »

If the so-called libertarians that voted for Gary Johnson actually cared about freedom they would have voted for Clinton in order to stop Donald Trump from winning as that was the only possible way to beat him. It shouldn't be a surprise that they didn't do that as the libertarian movement is more about advancing white male privilege as opposed to expanding freedom.

But this is how you end up with someone unlikeable in power. If you only vote for them to keep out someone worse, you just end up with poor candidates and policies. I wouldn't have voted for Johnson in the end, I'd have cast my hypothetical ballot for Clinton.

Manic Moran

There are two reasons I went third party.

Firstly, I actually preferred one of the third party candidates over the two main parties. I will give my vote to the person who best deserves it. I did not believe Clinton or a Trump did. I don't think there is any moral or political problem with this attitude.

Secondly, if I vote for Trump or Clinton to keep the other out of office, what message are the powers that are going to take from it in four years? "People support him. Candidates like this are what we should be sending forward. It gets us votes". Personally, I am willing to sacrifice four years so that we don't end up with this deftness again.

AbusesToilets

There was also the argument that if a 3rd party candidate receives a sufficient percentage of the vote, that party qualifies for federal assistance next go around. 5% was the figure I believe and it looks like he missed that mark, netting about 3% nationally.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

There was also the argument that if a 3rd party candidate receives a sufficient percentage of the vote, that party qualifies for federal assistance next go around. 5% was the figure I believe and it looks like he missed that mark, netting about 3% nationally.

Disappointingly, Johnson did seem to come off the rails with his response to climate change being that we need to look into colonising other planets and being unable to name a single leader he admired. He also snapped at a Guardian journalist when asked about his tax policies. I don't consider the Aleppo incident all that significant. I am a tad disappointed that he didn't hit the 5% funding target as that might have led to an opening of the 2-party system.

Jawgap

Looks like Clinton will win the popular vote by widest popular vote margin among Electoral College losers, except for 1824, 1876 but not all states voted then.

Interestingly.....Trump had this to say about the electoral college 4 years ago.....

.....

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082


Trump Warms to the Electoral College, 4 Years After Calling It “a Disaster for a Democracy”

26000 Elephants

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Disappointingly, Johnson did seem to come off the rails with his response to climate change being that we need to look into colonising other planets and being unable to name a single leader he admired. He also snapped at a Guardian journalist when asked about his tax policies. I don't consider the Aleppo incident all that significant. I am a tad disappointed that he didn't hit the 5% funding target as that might have led to an opening of the 2-party system.

They are all fairly serious gaffs, the aleppo one included. I'm surprised that in a country the size of the US that they cant find higher quality candidates to run on the 3rd ticket. I guess its to do with the fact that it would be a bookend to your political career and the professional politicians are fighting it out to get into the top 2 parties.

The only way there would be a chance was if there were a schism in one of the big 2. It may happen yet.

Hank Scorpio

brooke 2 wrote: »

So much for draining the swamp! It will positively stink with that pair!! :mad::mad:

Trey Gowdy's been mentioned a lot as AG. I would love to see that happen.

ancapailldorcha

Low quality posts deleted.

ancapailldorcha

26000 Elephants wrote: »

They are all fairly serious gaffs, the aleppo one included. I'm surprised that in a country the size of the US that they cant find higher quality candidates to run on the 3rd ticket. I guess its to do with the fact that it would be a bookend to your political career and the professional politicians are fighting it out to get into the top 2 parties.

The only way there would be a chance was if there were a schism in one of the big 2. It may happen yet.

Judging by a video I saw of the convention, Johnson was by far the sanest one there. They'd be fairly fringe organisations and, as you say anyone more pragmatic will try to climb in the big two.

brevity

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/797911772313382912

First I'm hearing of him. There was talk it might be the guy from Breitbart.

aloyisious

Is the reason Don chose Mike Pence as his Transition team boss has to do with him being a senior Party member who will be able to mollify any upset caused there by backtracking on what were supposed to be election promises? Mike is apparently to be in charge of political matters on the W/House team as well according to what I heard on RTE much earlier today - the Marian Finucane Show - where there was a lot of supposing Don might get tired early in office. A fair bit of the supposing was from US guests on the show.

aloyisious

brevity wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/797911772313382912

First I'm hearing of him. There was talk it might be the guy from Breitbart.

The gent who was in Breithart (Steve Bannon) is supposed to have a dislike for Paul Ryan, and if Don and Paul are making up on the political front (publicly at least) that might be a reason for the choice of Priebus cos of his being RNC.

Ta for the name, Count Dooku.

Count Dooku

brevity wrote: »

https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/797911772313382912

First I'm hearing of him. There was talk it might be the guy from Breitbart.

Steve Bannon will be the White House chief strategist

aloyisious

Count Dooku wrote: »

Steve Bannon will be the White House chief strategist

And Counsellor too. I suppose it might be for the political front at home if Don is faced with two opposing sets of advice from within his group, turn to his counsellor Ala Consigliare. I can imagine a lot of egos headbutting over the next two months on the Don team fighting for primacy, career and favour.

Edit... There is one thing I've been curious about in all this politicking. Has there been any input into either side by the labour Unions?

AbusesToilets

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Judging by a video I saw of the convention, Johnson was by far the sanest one there. They'd be fairly fringe organisations and, as you say anyone more pragmatic will try to climb in the big two.

I think the best chance of success for a legitimate 3rd party would be one formed by centrist Congress members. A leader with a strong personality and drive, along with sufficient financial backing would be crucial.

I think that a top down approach is more likely to be successful versus trying to incrementally growing at the state level.

brevity

Count Dooku wrote: »

Steve Bannon will be the White House chief strategist

https://twitter.com/JWGOP/status/797918770136117248

This guy works with Kasich - a republican.

Nody

Well China has just called Trump's bluff.

The Global Times, the country’s state-run newspaper, said Mr Trump would be “naïve” to start a trade war against the country and that China would respond with "counter-measures" if the US were to act in an aggressive way.

The editorial was clear there would a “tit-for-tat approach” if Mr Trump lives up to his campaign pledge of putting up a 45 per cent tariff on Chinese exports.

...

“A batch of Boeing orders will be replaced by Airbus. US auto and iPhone sales in China will suffer a setback, and US soybean and maize imports will be halted. China can also limit the number of Chinese students studying in the US. "

Guess we can add another item on the list of things promised that's not going to happen.

Christy42

Nody wrote: »

Well China has just called Trump's bluff.

Guess we can add another item on the list of things promised that's not going to happen.

I am sure it was just a metaphorical trade war Trump wanted to start with China. Trump's plans are falling part before he even reaches the white house.

brevity

Christy42 wrote: »

I am sure it was just a metaphorical trade war Trump wanted to start with China. Trump's plans are falling part before he even reaches the white house.

If Trump lasts 4 years I'll eat my hat.

He doesn't want to be there and the Republicans don't want him either - he's too unpredictable.

Hank Scorpio

Russia have come out extending their arm for peace with the US. The DOW is at a record high. The TPP is dead. Canada's PM has come out saying they are willing to renegotiate NAFTA. Trump refusing a salary and no mention of public hiring for administrative roles https://www.greatagain.gov/serve-america.html .

The man isn't even in office yet and all I see on these boards is constant doom and gloom. He simply cannot win.

Very little mention of Soros, his funding to certain individuals and the rioting going on in major cities right now.

ancapailldorcha

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I think the best chance of success for a legitimate 3rd party would be one formed by centrist Congress members. A leader with a strong personality and drive, along with sufficient financial backing would be crucial.

I think that a top down approach is more likely to be successful versus trying to incrementally growing at the state level.

Fair point but such a party would be forsaking the brands of the big two. I think it is something which needs to happen but it looks like both parties still cater to enough lobbyist interests to create a funding vacuum for would-be challengers.

Jawgap

Christy42 wrote: »

I am sure it was just a metaphorical trade war Trump wanted to start with China. Trump's plans are falling part before he even reaches the white house.

I think the problem he's going to face on this and other issues is in the specificity of his rhetoric - he left very little wiggle room as this illustrates.

If he doesn't impose tariffs on China, build an actual wall, deport 3 million illegal immigrants etc etc etc it will be hung around his neck, even if he replaces all those pledges with something better and more pragmatic.

Likewise, if factories don't re-locate and if NAFTA survives he'll spend a lot of time explaining which as the old adage goes means he'll be losing.

One talking head on the radio at the weekend questioned the impact the proposed cut in corporation tax might have - how likely are businesses to base their investment decisions on a reduced tax rate when the cards are stacking up against him being a two-term President, and the next incumbent might jack it back up a few percent?

Personally, I'm coming more to the conclusion that he won't even make one term - the White House for all its power is a gilded cage (and not literally gilded the way his penthouse is ) and I think being cut off from his businesses, being forced to actually govern (and being told what he can and can't do) and the inevitable criticism that will follow will lead to him creating a context where he can resign without making it look like he's had enough.

I give him to just after the mid-terms.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Russia have come out extending their arm for peace with the US.

Russia has been at peace with the US for a number of administrations now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

alastair

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The man isn't even in office yet and all I see on these boards is constant doom and gloom. He simply cannot win.

Not as long as he continues to propose unachievable policy platforms or push flat earth theories, you're right, he can't.

Hank Scorpio

alastair wrote: »

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

The man isn't even in office yet and all I send on these boards is constant doom and gloom. He simply cannot win.

Not as long as he continues to propose unachievable policy platforms or push flat earth theories, you're right, he can't.

Given that you were calling her President Clinton weeks if not months before the election, I'll have to take what you say about Trump winning anything with a pinch of salt.

On Russia, HRC has been pushing an agenda for a long time. This came up even recently in the debates about her willingness to implement no fly zones in Syria. That is only one on a list of things she has said to provoke tensions.

"Retired senior US military pilots are increasingly alarmed that Hillary Clinton’s proposal for “no-fly zones” in Syria could lead to a military confrontation with Russia that could escalate to levels that were previously unthinkable in the post-cold war world."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/25/hillary-clinton-syria-no-fly-zones-russia-us-war#img-1

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Given that you were calling her President Clinton weeks if not months before the election, I'll have to take what you say about Trump winning anything with a pinch of salt.

So what do you want to see from Trump's presidency, do you want to see corporate lobbying etc taken out of the equation? Do you want him to bring the jobs back from abroad? Also, do you want the illegal immigrants kicked out ASAP and the wall built? And if so, how do you want him to balance the economy to make these affordable?

First Up

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So what did you get?

Hank Scorpio

Billy86 wrote: »

So what do you want to see from Trump's presidency, do you want to see corporate lobbying etc taken out of the equation? Do you want him to bring the jobs back from abroad? Also, do you want the illegal immigrants kicked out ASAP and the wall built? And if so, how do you want him to balance the economy to make these affordable?

I believe he can significantly improve economic growth by implementing strategies like he's talked about e.g. lowering corporate tax and imposing tariffs on incoming trade, renegotiating failed deals like NAFTA.

On the illegal immigrants side I think he will immediately deport all illegals who've committed crimes or are short term illegals, and allow families who've been in the country for a long period of time and haven't committed crimes to stay and get registered legally. This will work out for everyone once the border is secured. It's worked reducing immigrants by 95% in other countries with a combination of a wall, fences and added border security staff.

Most of all I want to see corruption removed from office, and the law of the land applied to everyone equally. I can't check right if more cabinet positions have been filled but Trey Gowdy has been pouted as AG and I think it would be a great choice. I want to see him implement an ID system to prevent voter fraud.

I'd like see how he's mentions every Rally the veterans taken care of. The figure of 20+ vets killing themselves everyday is disgusting. One of the biggest question marks hanging over him is what is he going to do about ISIS. Nobody knows the answer to that, whether he'll work with Russia in some capacity or not. Either way it's going to be dirty and ultimately he may
well be judged on it.