President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

wes

Special Circumstances wrote: »

I definitely got that vibe from Hillary herself, but yeah millionaire celebrities ramming things down people's throats didn't help either.

They voted for a "millionaire" celebrity............

Who is now robbing them blind. Hard to have sympathy for them, as Trump supporters didn't give all that much of a crap, for the people there side attacked.

BTW, Trump supporters do include white supremacists. He was supported by the KKK, and Bannon is also a white supremacist. People weren't saying that stuff for no reason.

The best one can say about Trump supporters, is that they don't care about the people who Trump attacked, and who is now actively going after, now that he is President.

Now, having said that, you do have a point for the lack of empathy shown for some of the poorer Trump supporters, and that was a failure. Having said that, being poor is no excuse for not showing empathy for other people, and those category of supporters are just as guilty of that as well. The people suffering under Trump is on them, and being poor is no excuse imho for that.

Yourself isit

Christy42 wrote: »

The argument was that liberals care too much about them. Surely it is hardly Republicans rolling over if they just don't care? I mean could the Republicans care about this more than they care about the working class?

Well some republicans are religious. Most working class people consider this stuff a distraction.

I lived in california and left just a few years ago. In the very progressive company I worked in women opposed a pre op transgender woman (ie a biological man) using their restroom.

That might have changed since but this issue is hardly pressing with even card carrying Democrats.

demfad

wes wrote: »

Now, having said that, you do have a point for the lack of empathy shown for some of the poorer Trump supporters, and that was a failure. Having said that, being poor is no excuse for not showing empathy for other people, and those category of supporters are just as guilty of that as well. The people suffering under Trump is on them, and being poor is no excuse imho for that.

Poorer in this context remember is poorer than other white people.
The poorest voters in America, female black voters voted 94% against Trump.
Looks like they saw him for exactly what he is.

Christy42

Yourself isit wrote: »

Well some republicans are religious. Most working class people consider this stuff a distraction.

I lived in california and left just a few years ago. In the very progressive company I worked in women opposed a pre op transgender woman (ie a biological man) using their restroom.

That might have changed since but this issue is hardly pressing with even card carrying Democrats.

At least in Ireland I feel things have changed recently but no idea about the states.

However the result for those working class who don't consider it an issue is that they traded one party who devotes too many resources to this for another party that devotes too many resources to this (in the opinion of the working class). I don't get why liberals get all the blame for paying attention to this.

demfad

Yourself isit wrote: »

Well some republicans are religious. Most working class people consider this stuff a distraction.

I lived in california and left just a few years ago. In the very progressive company I worked in women opposed a pre op transgender woman (ie a biological man) using their restroom.

That might have changed since but this issue is hardly pressing with even card carrying Democrats.

Strange. At the DNC this July card carrying democrats were saying the exact opposite to your assertion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

demfad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

But Republicans are talking about these issues also, except they are talking about electric therapy for gays, removing funding for contraception, banning abortion and domestic violence protections.
Trump did promise these people their jobs back. But he lied.
Clinton had something real which was the promise of free third level education and a chance of the children and grandchildren of these voters finding a way out of their rut. She did address these voters, with something real for the 21st century.

I know Trumps camp spinned it but have you any substantiation that democrats working around the US on elections are all Ivy league educated/never been in factories before?

demfad

Again just putting this up for people to reflect. These are some of Trump's Russian links to people from his background and who were involved around the election. If the investigative media had been doing their job he should have not made it passed the primaries. Remember the main goal of the hacks and wikileaks dump was to give the semblance of wrong doing by 'crooked Hillary' but more importantly to tie the media up so they could not investigate the below:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well sure, why not. The whole point of Sanders running was to either win or force Clinton to the left. It worked. And Clinton won handily among voters under 40 (those that actually voted, I mean).

For all the talk of the little-guy rustbelters who backed Trump, Clinton won among voters who made less than €50K, too.

One eyed Jack

demfad wrote: »

Again just putting this up for people to reflect. These are some of Trump's Russian links to people from his background and who were involved around the election. If the investigative media had been doing their job he should have not made it passed the primaries. Remember the main goal of the hacks and wikileaks dump was to give the semblance of wrong doing by 'crooked Hillary' but more importantly to tie the media up so they could not investigate the below:

demfad with all due respect, I can see now why the Moderators merged your (un)original thread back info the main discussion about Trump, because in spite of asking your original question and having it answered in multiple ways, multiple times by multiple posters, you still seem more concerned with putting forth your underlying point that Trump should never have been elected in the first place.

I'm not a regular poster in Politics, and I only caught your thread on the front page, but when I saw it had been merged into a massive megathread, I'm pretty sure your question has been answered at least a dozen times already, and presenting evidence after the fact as to why he shouldn't have been elected, is a demonstration of exactly why he was elected - because people who felt their needs had been ignored by the Obama administration, and were likely to be ignored under Hillary (and even moreso if Bernie had stood a chance) decided they'd had enough.

wes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Surely adopting aspects of Sander platform was a smart move?

Just looking at how much money Trump is taking from the US tax payer right now, its kind of hard to have sympathy for the rust belt people. There being robbed blinded and were told, that is exactly what would happen.

Also, manual labour jobs are never coming back, and trying to destroy there export economy isn' going to bring them back. Automation will increasingly make manual and even white collar labour obsolete. Wishful thinking from Trump and the rust belters, isn't going to stop technology. Instead of addressing the real problem, they have decided in engage in a bunch utterly stupid policies, and needless pissing matches with allies.

demfad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, she negotiated with her primaries rival to secure a unified platform and she used policies which she thought would work. Normal party business.
The point is that this policy addresses concerns of the demographic you mentioned, concerns you claimed were not addressed.

BTW: In this video Trump admits he lied about 'draining the swamp', he says this to the people he lied to: from 4:45. Its unusual but it should remove some of your righteousness over Hillary.

Hillary offered policies. Trump offered lies that would fool people into voting for him.

Zubeneschamali

One eyed Jack wrote: »

exactly why he was elected - because people who felt their needs had been ignored by the Obama administration, and were likely to be ignored under Hillary (and even moreso if Bernie had stood a chance) decided they'd had enough.

Well, that is one story.

Another is that Dems were just not as fired up to vote for Hillary as Obama, because she is old news, uninspiring, not likeable enough.

Manic Moran

demfad wrote: »

.

I know Trumps camp spinned it but have you any substantiation that democrats working around the US on elections are all Ivy league educated/never been in factories before?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/the-democratic-party-deserves-to-die_us_58236ad5e4b0aac62488cde5

"There was an incredibly revealing moment at the DNC. In an effort to rev up the crowd one of the speakers called out: “Who in this room works with their hands?” Silence"

demfad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

demfad with all due respect, I can see now why the Moderators merged your (un)original thread back info the main discussion about Trump, because in spite of asking your original question and having it answered in multiple ways, multiple times by multiple posters, you still seem more concerned with putting forth your underlying point that Trump should never have been elected in the first place.

I'm not a regular poster in Politics, and I only caught your thread on the front page, but when I saw it had been merged into a massive megathread, I'm pretty sure your question has been answered at least a dozen times already, and presenting evidence after the fact as to why he shouldn't have been elected, is a demonstration of exactly why he was elected - because people who felt their needs had been ignored by the Obama administration, and were likely to be ignored under Hillary (and even moreso if Bernie had stood a chance) decided they'd had enough.

Not at all.

It is the very fact of Trump or a man like Trump can get elected despite the many many many skeletons in his closet that makes why and how he got elected and who was behind him such pertinent questions.

The media played a role in this election like no other: The emergence of post-truth from Russia westwards is a huge area.
The lessening of the publics view of democracy over the last 20 years is relevant.
The fall of the soviet union and the massive shift in world politics as a result.
Who are the 'little grey men' behind Trump, what do they represent. What do they promise him?
How was social media used, is there lessons we can learn in Ireland?
There is huge scope for valuable discussion here which alas will get drowned in the main forum.

Do i think he shouldn't have one?
Absolutely. He is under 5 investigations for connections to Russia. If people had any inkling that he had a potentially treasonous relationship with Russia he would have been torpedoed. But some of the press knew of ongoing FBI investigations and stayed silent. Why?

Below is a pic of Trump in Mar A Lago with Japanese PM, just after learning that N Korea has fired a nuclear missile. He allows the next course be ordered, the situation room is the dinner table, guests everywhere, cameras, recorders, selfies.....He didnt get elected on merit: how did this man get elected? Fascinating and historical I would have thought.

Mr.Micro

demfad wrote: »

She won the popular vote by 3 million votes in fairness (one of the largest of all time) and as has been pointed out Obama would have struggled in the swing States with the Voters Rights Laws changed as they were.

She had to face other obstacles that Obama didn't:

• A propaganda campaign against her including SuperPACS, films, books from Steve Bannon, The Mercers and others dating back to 2009.
• The Citizens United case meant that Billionaire donors were now back in the game. The full effect of this was used against Clinton with superPACS like 'stop crooked Hillary' funding even more baseless propaganda campaigns.
• An investigative media diminished since the crash and tied up with teh hacked/leaked emails meant they spent the vast amount of time on her emails instead of on his shady history and Russian connections.
• Cambridge Analaytica, a new age big data 'election manipulation' polling machine capable of analaysing and predicting voter bahavious and dropping 'dark post' attack ads to individual users SM platforms. CA boasted  a network of 23,000 pages and 1.3 million hyperlinks. CA seems to have subcontracted a troll army who have dominated US SM since 2014 with anti-Hillary pro Trump messages.
• A last minute conspiracy (under investigation) to reopen an old email investigation when Trump was dead and buried.

Inspite of all these extra disadvantages the race came down to a 70,000 votes in 3 swing states. Under the circumstances she didn't do badly at all.

She did not win. A chimp would probably have beaten Trump but not her. IMO, my hypothetical chimp vs Trump wound have taken most of the votes Trump got. She was a worse candidate than Trump and both were truly awful.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well, the majority of the electorate did want that kind of leader. An archaic systems screwed Clinton over. I do agree that Clinton made a lot of mistakes, but its not quite the disater its being painted as considering that she won the popular vote by a huge margin.

Basically, it comes down to a 10 of 1000s of voters in 3 states, where she failed to get them to vote for her. Basically, she needed to put more work on those states, and not have taken them for granted, that was ultimately her biggest mistake imho.

Sam Russell

Why didn't she select Sanders as her VP candidate?

Yourself isit

demfad wrote: »

Strange. At the DNC this July card carrying democrats were saying the exact opposite to your assertion.

OK, then with democratic voters in general.

I have no idea whether these women were democratic members but they were probably democratic voters.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PopePalpatine

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Well sure, why not. The whole point of Sanders running was to either win or force Clinton to the left. It worked. And Clinton won handily among voters under 40 (those that actually voted, I mean).

For all the talk of the little-guy rustbelters who backed Trump, Clinton won among voters who made less than €50K, too.

In fairness, you could attribute Clinton's win amongst <$50k/yr voters to minority & female voters alienated by the GOP (e.g. the Southern Strategy & pandering to Christian reactionaries).

listermint

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Your terminology Microsoft strategy is obsolete in the last 2 years. They are now leading that market in innovation.

A solid investor in technology would keep abreast of anecdotes when they fall out with current trends

wes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Again, she lost a few states in the rust belt, and that why she lost overall.

Yes, the system was there for all other Presidents, but its a system that doesn't give equal value to all voters, which is problematic, and we end up with policies that a majority of the electorate are against being put in place.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wes

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

She won amongst those bothered enough to vote overall. Its a pretty good sample size for an opinion poll .

eire4

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why didn't she select Sanders as her VP candidate?

I always wondered why she did not do this. Arrogance maybe given she and all the corporate democrats were sure she would win. It certainly backfired though as with Sanders as VP I cannot see how she would not have won. Instead she went with yet another corporate democrat in Tim Kaine which inspired nobody never mind what Kane actually represented in being a corporate democrat.

Leroy42

It could have been that Sanders wouldn't accept the position. He seems a man of principles and maybe he felt that despite HC move towards the left he couldn't work in her administration and was better off staying the maverick pissing into the tent.

Sam Russell

Leroy42 wrote: »

It could have been that Sanders wouldn't accept the position. He seems a man of principles and maybe he felt that despite HC move towards the left he couldn't work in her administration and was better off staying the maverick pissing into the tent.

But he would have been a heart beat from the presidency, with a 70 year old occupant, whose health was called into question. Then there's the 2nd amendment crowd ....