Printable View
Actually I'm not voting for Trump. While I'm not 100% enthusiastic about her, I'm voting for Hillary Clinton. I'm just being realistic about Trump's chances of winning. A view I have had going all way back to their respective conventions.Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Whether or not Comey endangered his position at the head of the FBI, the episode has cost him his chief asset: his reputation, cultivated assiduously in the media, for probity and judgment. Beyond the director himself, the coda to the Clinton email inquiry has exposed the FBI as a politicized agency, a development with serious repercussions over the next several years.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...n-emails-trump
I don't know if people will agree with the above, but the article offers a gloomy prospect for the FBI for the near future. Another casualty of this ugly election, you have to wonder how the FBI got itself into such a mess.
Best of luck for tomorrow. You know your duty
(Sent from a legal email server!)
I'm glad that this forum allows for political discourse but I find it funny that a fair number of conservative men thoroughly enjoy viewing transgender porn or engaging in physical acts with transsexual women. But say or do very little to help with lgbtq issues !
I have a little confession.Quote:
Originally Posted by blackchubby38
Not only do I misread half the posts here,
I have no idea what will happen tomorrow.
Either half the country is composed of morons,
or I am mentally ill.
Maybe both.
Same here...and same goes for trans folk (male and female) voting for a party that literally wants to legislate them out of existence.Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanferryfan2
My last thoughts on this election are prompted by the insistence by Ann Coulter on the BBC 2 programme Newsnight an hour ago, that she thinks Trump has articulated the issues and that it was not his personality that won over those Americans who say they will vote for him. I find this astonishing, as his attacks on trade deals, on China and immigration contain no depth of thought at all and if anything present the remarkable position of an American capitalist who is opposed to free trade. That alone should have had conservatives storming the barricades around Trump rallies, or having a quiet word with Reince Priebus about ditching him. And where in any case was there a sustained debate on climate change and the environment, on education, on perhaps the biggest issue for Conservatives -welfare?
But two moments for me crystallise this election campaign -the first was the moment at a Trump rally when a man heckling the platform was dragged away and Trump said he would like to punch him in the face. That a Presidential candidate wanted to physically assault a fellow American for criticising him exposed that aspect of Trump's personality which makes him unfit for public office. The second came in the TV debate when, having claimed elections are rigged, Trump refused to say he would accept the result. That to me was not just outrageous, it did not just prove Trump believes he is more important than the American political system, it was surely an attack on the Constitution, and that the Republican Party failed to deal with it speaks volumes for the decline of the Party of Lincoln into a bottle party that no decent person would want to attend.
Courage!
Agreed . The complete impotence of the Republican Party in this whole thing disturbs me the most.
My only last thoughts are that we should all get out and vote even if you're in a state that's bluer than blue or redder than red. It's a privilege to be able to have a voice in the election, and there's a lot at stake. If obstacles have been put in your way, that's even more incentive to vote.
Hopefully the next time I post here, we'll have just elected our first female president, who despite her pantsuits and awkward laugh, is a supremely competent and dedicated public servant.
I'm very certain America will vote with resounding wisdom tomorrow and elect Hillary our next president. (fingers crossed)
This has been a difficult election for sure. The stuff some of my family and friends have uttered greatly trouble me.. and I'm sure the Trump folks in my life are saying the same about me.
Our little forum here has been a welcome ray of sanity.
Clump.Attachment 978007
I know we do not know each other, but I propose if things go well, we all drink a toast...at an appointed time. I recommend tomorrow night when the results are called at say midnight, since I assume we will be up for what will be a historic night. I'll drink one shot of vodka to the members of the forum and to the result if it's Hillary. If it's Donald, I'll have three and a mild hangover. :)
I'll drink to that
let's do it, even though we're all in different time zones
Haven't posted in awhile. It gets a little repetitive after a bit. Also it gets a little emotionally exhausting politically disagreeing with friends, coworkers and family IRL. I never start the political arguments, but if you're going to give me obvious bogus stats and political lies...I'm going to call you on it.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
A rabid Trump fan ex of mine started going into the whole - "I can't vote for 'her' because she corrupt, crooked ..and Blah, blah, blah... "
I said "Even if you are absolutely correct and I'm completely wrong - every sin you accuse her of can be countered with one by Trump. Hell, he often touts them as accomplishments or character strengths. At the very, very least Mrs. Clinton can work in government and know how to be 'Presidential'. Trump's an intellectual lazy douche."
I voted Clinton at 0930 AM EST. I feel it was the only real choice.
I'm gonna forgo the usual Bourbon and go right to the Tequila Bronc...
correction: intellectually lazy douche.
There's no way he's an intellectual.
The best advice I can give to anyone who had differences with friends and/or family members during this election is this:
If Clinton wins, don't overly celebrate. Either in person or on social media. Just say you're happy this election went the way you wanted it to and move on.
If Trump wins, tip your hat to the guy they voted for and accept the results. Don't give any Trump voter the satisfaction of seeing you get upset.
At this point, it's not over, but it looks like Donald Trump is going to win (Hillary still has a path to victory, but her chances are being whittled away). This feels like science fiction or surreal in some way. If Trump wins, I will respect that he won the vote, but we still have a constitution and still have the rights of women and minorities to defend. That fight shouldn't be suspended. But I feel too sick to drink anything. I cannot believe that so many people can be so stupid and hate-filled.
I do believe it. I've seen it. Trump has legitimized it all over again. Should he win, and it looks likely, I will respect the election results. But I'll be crying inside for the next four years at the very least. This country is going down the toilet once again, until some future liberal president wrests it from self-destruction. Even should Hillary win, this vile hatred that many white American Christian men feel for the Other has been unleashed; putting it back in its jar will be a difficult task.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
I'm struggling to comprehend what the American people appear to have done. The man is a demagogue. Can't anyone see that?
Surely a destabilising influence on the world ... :(
The result, if Donald Trump is elected President, contains more questions than answers at this point. The electoral process has only just begun, and it remains to be seen if the Electoral College confirms Trump as President.
The questions raised exist precisely because of what Trump has said he would do, and before any consideration of trade policy, immigration and foreign policy, if we accept that the voters have rejected 'politics as usual' then Trump's much-repeated slogan 'We are going to drain the swamp' combined with the fracture in policy terms between Trump and his own party raises the prospect of a Republican President who can't get his policies through a Republican Congress. Given that the Republican Party is closely tied to the corporate interests that fund it, the same interests the voters are blaming for their problems that Trump says he will solve, if he is going to 'drain the swamp' then surely that must refer to Republican as well as Democrat Senators and Representatives, as well as the institutions of state, such as the offices of government -such as the Departments of Homeland Security and Education, and agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Reserve, as well as the CIA, the FBI and so on -or 'drain the swamp' is what it always sounded like -an empty slogan from a dodgy salesman whose main aim is to sell you something you think you want but what in fact you don't need.
In sum, this election has produced a result from which, like Brexit, everyone, including I suspect the Trump campaign, is lost in a fog of disbelief. One can imagine Trump being told he has won and after a few moments, exclaiming like Mr Magoo 'Now what do I do?'. Moreover, if there is anything to learn from Brexit, it is that what appears to be a clear message to government, does not produce a clearly stated agenda, indeed the immediate chaos that surrounded the result in the UK has only been replaced by an orderly confusion of 'what Brexit means' because in both cases it is hard to know if what Trump said has any traction in real policy terms just as we don't know what the real terms of Brexit will be, let alone what their impact on economy and society will be.
But the markets are spooked, and that may present a 'President Trump' with a recession as item No 1 in his in-tray, undermining his plans for 'change'.
Thus the bitter irony in all this is that Trump will not get to build his wall, he will not be able to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants, he will not be able to roll back 40 years of liberal legislation on abortion and LGBQTPIAN-B rights, he will find himself stuck in tortuous negotiations on trade that cannot be annulled by Presidential swipes of the pen while the Chinese counter Trump's threats by refusing to carry on buying the American debt, indeed asking for their money back or withdrawing it from US Banks, while the promised wipe-out of Daesh is irrelevant as existing US power together with the Iraqi and Kurdish forces relieve him of that burden-
thus, the people who voted for change will wonder when is this change going to happen? The tone of politics will change, Trump has already poisoned the well on that level, and I do hope that the violent attacks on Polish businesses and individuals resulting in destruction and death that followed Brexit here do not translate in the US into physical attacks on minorities, but it may be that is the price you have to pay for handing power to a reckless idiot who may not even last the full four year term. We shall see.
I respect the result, because democracy is bigger than any one person, but what I hope most of all is that in such a bitterly divided country, Trump and his supporters also respect the democracy that has given them power, because they are custodians of a great tradition for four years, not for all time, and as we all know, anything is possible in America, and one must always trust that in the long term the USA will survive the best and the worst of times.
Is it possible that on December 19 the State Electors of the Electoral College will elect Hillary Clinton as the 45th President of the United States? After all it is the Electoral College that must choose the President.
Well, shit really does happen. Enjoy being ruled by a sociopath
What more is there to say
No. It is not possible. An elector is morally obligated to vote for the candidate who attained a simple plurality of votes in the state that he/she represents. A tiny handful of electors in our history have not honored this duty, but it is extremely rare. It has never changed a result from what was intended by the vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Reflecting back on the events of last night, I think it was clear early on that Hillary was in trouble. It just seemed as the results started coming in, she was either way behind Trump or she could never gain any momentum when she was ahead of him. If you look at the swing states, her numbers remained stagnant, while Trump's kept increasing. As precincts' kept coming in, those states where getting redder and redder. Until the final result showed why I thought Trump would win this election. There is a huge segment of this country that is angry (and sometimes rightfully so, its just their anger is misdirected) and this was their opportunity to "take their country back". It also confirmed that this country truly is racially divided and I don't see how we can move things forward.
OMG.............. Congratulations on a well conducted election in the USA! How is this possible.....?????
Hillary led before the election, did she not?
He reminds me a bit about the German "Führer des Dritten Reich" in the thirties, hope he is more reasonable than he sounds in the media ....
I know it's difficult to think of this when you think of Americans. But you think of 59 million people who supported him....but also think of the 59 million people who were very invested in seeing him lose (who donated money, went to his opponent's rallies, voted, and encouraged others to do so).Quote:
Originally Posted by irvin66
We have no idea what we're going to get...there is the hope that he's more moderate in using power than he was in attaining it...but that doesn't even sound convincing. And yes he was behind in the polls, but there was a group of voters, mainly rural, in the midwest, who issued a primal scream on election night. What they want I have no idea.
Ha. I may have been slightly over-hasty when I suggested Trump might be a Clinton plant.......
This porous filter will let through a giant orange fascist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
You mean annoying cackle.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
Dedicated - yes, to enriching herself & slick willy.
Not stupid and hate filled, just tired of the lies and corruption going on the over 24 years.
On the market - It closed at a near record high! so much for the financial disaster the the pundits were (wrongfully) espousing.
Quit with the NSDAP analogies.Quote:
Originally Posted by irvin66
It's a terrible fit, and is insulting to those of us who's relatives fought to destroy that evil regime, and those of us (myself included) who have sacrificed much in the recent fight against terrorism.
She only led in the bent / lopsided, erroneous pools which are deliberately bent towards the left.
What they basically want are the manufacturing jobs that disappeared over the course of 30 years to return. In the order for that to happen, they're hoping Trump will put an end to globalism and fair trade.Quote:
Originally Posted by broncofan
They see how much the country has changed over the past 30 years when it comes to the color of people's skin and the impact that has had on what jobs are left and society as a whole. So they want Trump to put an end to illegal immigration.
They feel the failed Middle East policies of both Bush and Obama have made us less safe. So they want a stronger war on terror or for the United States to leave the Middle East all together.
They feel political correctness has run amok (this is actually one of the few things that I agree with) and its having a negative impact on the American. When it comes to fighting the war on terror, policing, and education.
They get angry every time there is a mass shooting and their 2nd Amendment rights come under constant attack.
They see the violent reaction of some members of the BLM as an attack on law enforcement. I can guarantee that was one of the reasons why Hillary lost North Carolina.
The other and I want to preface what I'm about say with this: I am against any forms of bathroom laws and I'm glad that outside pressure from various people and groups tried its best to get North Carolina to re-appeal the law.
Having said that, Trump supporters in North Carolina were galvanized by that outside pressure. They viewed it as economic blackmail. It didn't help that North Carolina was hit pretty hard by the Hurricane Matthew.
As you said, we have no idea what we are going to get. I still don't know what Trump's agenda is. Hopefully the Republicans in Congress who didn't trust him will keep him in check.
All props to blackchubby38 for seeing through the punditry bullshit. I was convinced that they knew something. Anything. I was wrong. So were they.
Oh well. At least CA prop 60 went down in flames. So did Joe Arpaio. The world's toughest sheriff was up to his eyeballs in lawsuits & federal charges for being an asshole. Cost Maricopa County millions to defend the indefensible. Republicans are like boils. Get rid of one & a bigger one infects you.
so, was at a bar last night in the prague when the results came in. and today i read that trump is "considering" ben carson as education secretary (ha- that's a laugh).
can't wait to get back home and wallow in depression with everyone else, but in the mean time, i'm off to have sex
Attachment 978513
One thing that has been overlooked in most of the commentary is that Clinton has actually received about 230,000 more votes in total than Trump. The seemingly decisive outcome is really just a product of the electoral college system and the geographical distribution of the votes. That obviously doesn't change the reality, but it does suggest that the idea that Americans have endorsed the Trump view of the world and rejected Clinton is complete nonsense (though non-college-educated whites clearly did so).
In reality, the USA is split almost 50/50 into two apparently irreconcilable camps, who even seem to get their 'facts' from different sources. I can't see how this augers well for the future of the country. History shows that countries tend to go into decline when they lose internal cohesion - that is, some level of agreement on shared values and rules of the game (and not viewing politics a 'winner take all' game where anything goes to advantage your own side). The idea that American can be made great again through half the country imposing it's view on the other half is a complete delusion.
I was asked by a friend to give figures on voter turnout and have discovered that votes are still being counted (half of them in California) and while it won't change the make-up of the electoral college, it does not look like the voter turnout will go beyond 60% as it appears to be around 57%.
Although this is in the area most elections have been in since the 1980s with the exception of 2008 when turnout exceeded 60% this seems a poor showing for such a large and vibrant democracy.
And thoughts on this?
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...t-clinton-won/
The USA is certainly towards the lower end among the developing countries, even where voting is optional http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...ped-countries/
I don't claim to have done a proper study, but I suspect the countries with high turnout have generally done better on social cohesion, ensuring the gains are widely shared etc. Cause and effect could go either way, but I think there's a reasonable argument that higher turnout tends to moderate the influence of the extremes (who have more strongly-held views) and push politics towards the centre.
I'm actually from Australia, which has compulsory voting (and >90% turnout). Actually, it's compulsory to turn up at the polling station and have your name crossed off - what you do with the ballot paper after that is your own affair (though only about 5 per cent of voters fail to cast a valid vote). The fine for not doing so is only A$20, so the high turnout seem to be explained by things other than the financial incentive.
Voting certainly seems to be much easier in Australia. I've seen pictures of long queues at US elections, but have never had to wait more than 5 minutes here. It helps a lot that voting in Australia occurs on Saturday rather than a weekday. It also helps that we have an independent electoral commission whose tasks is to encourage people to vote, rather than using tactics to discourage voting by certain groups as a political weapon.
A few thoughts on the US elections to add to my earlier post about voter turnout and Filhgy2's response above.
1) Would the US indeed, other liberal democracies benefit from a 'civic duty' approach to voting, as in Australia? But if there are already complaints that Americans are being denied the right to vote if they cannot produce a 'valid' ID which may require money to be spent on, say, a photo ID card which they cannot afford, why impose a financial penalty on them if they don't vote and also can't afford to pay the fine? On any given day, for a poor person, even $10 is more than they have. I think the 'civic duty' is a good idea, but it has flaws, particularly in the US where each State has its own rules.
2) Should the US change its polling day from Tuesday to Sunday, or voting on both Saturday and Sunday, to give people more time to vote when they have free time, to avoid lengthy queues, maybe even to increase voter participation? It is something I would like to see in the UK where we vote on a Thursday in May.
3) Should there be universal, ie Federal reform to restore voting rights to citizens who have been in prison? 'Felony disenfrachisement' means that more than 5 millions Americans are denied the vote, it may be as high as 1 in 40 people, and even if you think prisoners should be denied the vote, once released surely restoring their right to vote would help make them better citizens?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony...rent_practices
4) Are ballot papers in the US too big? Would it make it easier for people to choose the President if there was a separate ballot paper for the Presidency rather than one huge ballot paper with the names of all the candidates for county-state-Congress-Presidential offices? (I assume this is how it is done from the Ballot Papers I have seen).
5) Should the boundaries of Congressional Districts be the right of each State to determine, or should there be an independent, Federal Boundary Commission to do the job? This may go to the heart of 'State's Rights' but it appears that district boundaries are in desperate need of reform, though this may not be a high priority item for the Trump administration. And, crucially, would it result in a fairer distribution of votes and of representation?
@Stavros:
1. My view on voter fraud has always been this. If it truly is a problem like Republicans say it is, then non-driver photo ids should be made available to the public free of charge. Or since many states' benefit cards have the person's photo on them, those should be accepted as a form of identification at the polling place. But at the same time, Democrats need start to realizing that saying that poor people can't afford non-drivers photo id is a flawed argument. Here in NYC, you can get a valid id that is good for 8 years at a reasonable price. That covers two presidential elections right there.
2. I do think the time has come for Election Day to either be made a national holiday or moved to a Saturday. Having said that, a change like that needs bipartisan support and can't be brought up every time the Democrats lose an election. It just comes off as being a sore loser. Or the very least Republicans need to lose a close election and let them bring it up. I think the same applies for the calls to get rid of the electoral college.
3. I think a lot of it depends on the crime. If its a non-violent felony, then I could see restoring a person's right to vote as a part of the rehabilitation process. If the person commits a violent crime and/or is a repeat offender, I think they're showing that they don't want be part of civilized society and they're forfeiting all the rights that come with it.
4. I think the paper ballots are fine. The choices for President are the first ones on the ballot. So isn't like people have to go looking for them at the bottom or the back.
5. That's definitely a states' right issue and it can be seen as the federal government overstepping its bounds.
But I think the most important thing the Democrats could have done to prevented the low voter turnout in the 2016 election was to make sure their candidate didn't take it for granted and just assumed they were going to win it. Among other things.