Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kot]

This random Canadian from Imgur makes an awful lot of sense.

[smjjames]

Also, theres a bit of a silver lining for us liberals. Besides the author being an obvious British conservative shill, he does make a point that it's time for the Republicans to govern (insofar as the definition of 'govern' goes) as they are the 'rulers' and makes a point that it'll give the Democrats time to reconsolidate and take another look at their options.

Besides, any of us who have read 538 knows the fact that the ruling party tends to lose during midterms, meaning that there's a chance for a comeback. Defeating Clinton might be what's needed for the Democrats to wake up.

[nenjin]

This random Canadian from Imgur makes an awful lot of sense.

Some of it makes sense. But honestly it seems like some people think the response to Trump would be to just say nothing. Which wouldn't have worked either, he'd just have harped on their weakness.

I'll say it again: Hilary had so much baggage and preconceptions about her that Trump didn't have to try very hard to convince anyone not to trust her. Whether that's fair or not to Hilary, it's what happened.

[smjjames]

On the side note: does anyone think that the White House is going to be colored with gold paint by the end of the next year?

Also, how much Gilgamesh!Trump fanart do you think will be created at that time?

If he makes too much of a change, he'll definetly get a backlash, and he knows that he can't change things too much. He's said so before that he's aware of that fact.

[smjjames]

Oh and btw, the Dems just got a new senate seat confirmed, Maggie Hassan for NH.

[JimboM12]

This random Canadian from Imgur makes an awful lot of sense.

From an outside perspective, that expanded second part seemed right on the nose. The only one who could have matched Trump in the passion department and had the personality to do it was Bernie.

[smjjames]

4 years of Democratic filibustering in the Senate?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/scott-walker-donald-trump-filibuster/index.html Not unless they decide to remove the filibuster. Of course though, only problem with that is that the next time THEY are in the minority, they wouldn't be able to use it. A case of not thinking things through.

[Helgoland]

On the side note: does anyone think that the White House is going to be colored with gold paint by the end of the next year?

It was pretty much my first thought. I was thinking giant gold TRUMP letters either inside the WH or on the outer facade. It's the kind of thing he'd do.

The bit usually seen on TV actually is the backside of the building. Trump would be giving the White House a tramp stamp.

[smjjames]

Also, as might be expected, there are renewed calls to abolish the electoral college. Should have gone by the popular vote, even though it's pretty close with the popular vote.

Hey non-American Bay12ers that use a presidential style system! What do you guys use to determine the winner when you have two people go at each other, like we do? France is the only one I can think of atm that is a similar presidential system which isn't a shell of itself like Russia.

[Sergarr]

4 years of Democratic filibustering in the Senate?

I guess so. I've already heard some Republicans want to ban filibustering, though. They probably won't do it, though - too dangerous if the results flip back to Democrats 2-4 years in the future, and they very well might - Trump has an absurd -23 or so net favorability rating.

4 years of Democratic filibustering in the Senate?

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/scott-walker-donald-trump-filibuster/index.html Not unless they decide to remove the filibuster. Of course though, only problem with that is that the next time THEY are in the minority, they wouldn't be able to use it. A case of not thinking things through.

Also, as might be expected, there are renewed calls to abolish the electoral college. Should have gone by the popular vote, even though it's pretty close with the popular vote.

They won't remove filibuster, they didn't do it during Bush's presidency and they were in a far better situation than they are now, realistically speaking. Bush was actually popular during his first term, but for many people, Trump was the "anti-establishment" or "anti-Clinton" vote.

Now that he is establishment, and with no Hillary, the second most unfavorable candidate in USA history, to run against him, he's going to get creamed next election season, unless he pulls out some real meme magic and actually makes America great again even more.

Also, as might be expected, there are renewed calls to abolish the electoral college. Should have gone by the popular vote, even though it's pretty close with the popular vote.

And those calls are retarded. When Brexit happened, everyone was calling to abolish referendums. It's the same typical over-reaction of the loser faction.

I feel kinda bad now for laughing at Republicans panicking at Obama (FEMA death-camps, anyone?) and buying guns, organizing militias, emigrating to Russia, etc, now, because quite a lot of Democrats appear to be no better at losing gracefully. Lots of people saying that they'll now buy guns for self-defence (against whom?!), emigrate to Canada (and leave American permanently Republican, presumably), there were even some calls for violent revolution - though not many.

The similarity of responses between two supposedly fundamentally different sides is really uncanny. Is this what they mean by the word "identity politics"?

[Neonivek]

Also, as might be expected, there are renewed calls to abolish the electoral college. Should have gone by the popular vote, even though it's pretty close with the popular vote.

Hey non-American Bay12ers that use a presidential style system! What do you guys use to determine the winner when you have two people go at each other, like we do? France is the only one I can think of atm that is a similar presidential system which isn't a shell of itself like Russia.

Will never happen

[MetalSlimeHunt]

It's not retarded, the Electoral College is the bane of our Presidential elections. It causes shit like this where the popular vote does not decide, and it means that candidates overly focus on swing states. Dem voters in Wyoming and Republican voters in Washington both start mattering when the EC is out the door.

We have to get rid of it. If the Dems don't make that one of their primary issues from now on they're utterly useless.

[Kot]

Trump took her stoicism and grounded it into a pulp. His first attack on Hillary during the general election was that "If she wasn't playing the woman card she wouldn't even get 5% of the vote." BOOM, head shot. How did Hillary respond? "If fighting for women's rights and equal pay is playing the woman card, then deal. Me. IN!"

This played perfectly into Trump's hand. He knew she'd be defiant in being a woman and take that attack personally. He used her soundbites to wedge a gap between men and women voters. The male vote wasn't 2:1 for Trump because they were misogynists, it was because Hillary's words excluded their existence.

I don't really want to sound sexist, but I just realized this is precisely why I didin't thought she was good in first place. Just look at the internet, what you see? "10,000 years reign of men is over?" "Bernie Sanders (or basically whoever) sexist because opposing Hillary"? "War on women"? The whole bullshit with leftist men overcoming their instincts and voting for her? This sounds like something made by SJW (and proably, actually is, as I don't think she's so stupid to say anything against the men, but I think she didin't really say anything specifically about them too) And then she literally confirms (after getting played, to be honest, but still...) all this shit by saying that yes, she is playing the woman card. I must sadly say, that while I don't think she lost because she is a woman, she totally lost because she played the woman card and thanks to the SJWs screaming. It scared the men's ego away.

Hey non-American Bay12ers that use a presidential style system! What do you guys use to determine the winner when you have two people go at each other, like we do? France is the only one I can think of atm that is a similar presidential system which isn't a shell of itself like Russia.

In Poland, we run two turns. In first basically anyone who qualifies (citzenship, 35+) and gets enough (100,000, I think) signatures can start. At the end of it, they count the votes and (unless someone gets a crushing majority already) two candidates with most votes get to the second turn. Then we vote on either one or another. The one with majority wins.
All this is popular vote.

It's not retarded, the Electoral College is the bane of our Presidential elections. It causes shit like this where the popular vote does not decide, and it means that candidates overly focus on swing states. Dem voters in Wyoming and Republican voters in Washington both start mattering when the EC is out the door.

And now they overly focus on the most populous states. You're not changing anything, really. Get rid of Two Party first, if anything.

[smjjames]

Also, as might be expected, there are renewed calls to abolish the electoral college. Should have gone by the popular vote, even though it's pretty close with the popular vote.

And those calls are retarded. When Brexit happened, everyone was calling to abolish referendums. It's the same typical over-reaction of the loser faction.

I feel kinda bad now for laughing at Republicans panicking at Obama (FEMA death-camps, anyone?) and buying guns, organizing militias, emigrating to Russia, etc, now, because quite a lot of Democrats appear to be no better at losing gracefully. Lots of people saying that they'll now buy guns for self-defence (against whom?!), emigrate to Canada (and leave American permanently Republican, presumably), there were even some calls for violent revolution - though not many.

The similarity of responses between two supposedly fundamentally different sides is really uncanny. Is this what they mean by the word "identity politics"?

I get your point about the overreaction of the Democrats mirroring that of the Republicans, and TBH, it'd be a lot easier to simply reform the Electoral College than outright remove it. Though I don't trust the Republicans to not tilt it in their favor, it needs to be equal opportunity. Also, the EC and referendums are NOT the same thing, and the EC does have it's issues, you can't compare that and referendums.

This is the SECOND time the Democrats have been stung by the EC with winning the popular vote (though not by a huge margin), so it's particularily painful.

[MasterFancyPants]

If people are too afraid to walk around a college campus, then we have pretty amazing problems even without Trump. Calling the millennial generation ridiculously pampered and fragile is pretty cliche, but it is 100% accurate from my observations.

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/05/hate-crimes-rise-along-with-donald-trumps-anti-muslim-rhetoric/

Statistics disagree but whatever.

That "study" is laughably unconvincing and biased.

Whereas your anecdotal experience is the objective truth. an interesting proposition.

As I said before...

That's showing a correlation between Trump and Anti-Muslim violence (on a website that has clear anti-Trump Bias see: https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/donald-trump-will-be-president-this-is-what-we-do-next/ ).
As we all know correlation =/= causation.

More realistic reasons for both Trump's calls for more scrutiny of Muslims AND anti-Muslim violence:
The increase in high profile Islamic Terrorist attacks. (San Bernardino, Orlando, Nice, Charlie Hebdo, etc.)
The Syrian Crisis (close to 1 million refugees that are likely never going back home)


Many people (not just whites 1/3 of hispanics voted for Trump) feel, sometimes for justified reasons, that their way of life is under attack. Many of these people are going to push back to various extents.

Yeah, I'm sure that popularity of a racist candidate and racist violence are completely unrelated. If they didn't want to get attacked, those damn Muslims should have never come here anyway! How dare they... have slightly darker skin! And a different belief! Practically asking for it, with such gross attacks on OUR WAY OF LIFE!

Nice argument, putting words into my mouth.

1. Racist candidate
1/3 of Hispanics voted for Trump trends were similar among African Americans. The same white majority that went for Obama (2 times in my case) voted for Trump. All these people are racists? They support a racist candidate?

2. Gross attacks on our way of life (darker skin and different belief)
At what point did I advocate attacking Muslims? I agree with vetting.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-europe-migrants-germany-crime-idUSKCN0YT28V
You going to say that is a disruption of everyday life for those people.
You can deny this all you want, but a large proportion of Muslims (in comparison to other religions) agree with things like Sharia, Women being subservient to men, terrorist attacks.
http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf