President Trump

[Bagwan]

The world awaits the inauguration of the new president with a kind of stunned dread .

I hope that this man is , in some ways , changed by the appointment , and , in others , steadfast in his beliefs .

Coming from a business background , I hope his government runs , not with the standard vast deficit , but , more as a business should .
I hope that being wealthy , himself , will reduce the amount he can be influenced by big corporate lobby , and help in his negotiations with other countries .

I hope he is good for the USA .
I really do .

[Stan Reid]

Trump was not my first choice (or second or third or forth) but I voted for him. Calling people racist and Nazis just because they don't believe in EU style socialism is not going to win you any friends-just some advice for the future.

[Starter]

Trump - the American version of Brexit.

My opinion, which is worth exactly what you just paid for it, is that Trump was not elected so much for himself as a repudiation of career politicians whose only goal and purpose is to get re elected. When did being a politician become a career?

[AAReagles]

Hate to say it, but I’m glad he won considering HRC was the other option. The way I figure it, the fat cats are the ones who have been running the country for quite a while now. So why not let on of them take over the driver’s seat for a while.

The really good thing that I enjoy about all this, is that Trump not only wreck the RNC, but the also DNC, with him going from nothing to be considered as serious to be elected to begin with. Well, the RNC & DNC wrecked themselves actually. And they both deserved it.

[Rollo]

The really good thing that I enjoy about all this, is that Trump not only wreck the RNC, but the also DNC, with him going from nothing to be considered as serious to be elected to begin with. Well, the RNC & DNC wrecked themselves actually. And they both deserved it.

The GOP has done amazingly well out of this with control of the House, the Senate, 1600 Penn Ave, a Supreme Court pick and maybe as many as three more over the next four years.

From 3rd Jan 2017 to 2nd Jan 2019, I think that we're going to see a legislative whirlwind, with the 115th Congress being more productive than 112, 113 and 114 combined.

I also think it likely that the state of New Columbia will be added to the Union, with the New Columbia Admission Act being reintroduced to the house, following an 86% Yes vote in the referendum.

[Stan Reid]

And this is our new First Lady!:)

1119

[Roamy]

It is a great day for our Country !!!!!!!

[Starter]

It seems all of the "experts" are wrong on every count. The prediction was that if Trump was elected then the stock market would take a very deep dive. While the overnight futures were down a lot, the market itself was well up and flirting with all times highs for most of the afternoon.

[Grundo Farb]

And this is our new First Lady!:)

1119

Posting a photo of his hot wife.

That sort of epitomizes the demographic that voted for him.

[Starter]

It is a great day for our Country !!!!!!!
Haven't seen you around here in a while. What's up?

[Breeze]

I came back here because I was bored and wanted to read some entertaining comments on the Trump election. 10 years ago this thread would have been a 15 page flame war of epic proportions.

Where have all the interesting people gone (excepting, of course, those still here)?

[Bagwan]

I came back here because I was bored and wanted to read some entertaining comments on the Trump election. 10 years ago this thread would have been a 15 page flame war of epic proportions.

Where have all the interesting people gone (excepting, of course, those still here)?

They went wherever you just came back from .

Some of them are moving to Canada right now , so they're busy .

Some are still in shock , and speechless .

Some are still drunk .

[Rudy Tamasz]

On a totally different note, I wonder it was the Clinton curse that sank Hillary. What I mean is that Bill's presidency was quite popular but his legacy brought down first Al Gore's bid and now Hillary's. It seems that Billy's dark shadow ruins anybody he supports.

[Starter]

On a totally different note, I wonder it was the Clinton curse that sank Hillary. What I mean is that Bill's presidency was quite popular but his legacy brought down first Al Gore's bid and now Hillary's. It seems that Billy's dark shadow ruins anybody he supports.
He campaigned for Obama and it didn't hurt him. Hillary is genuinely not liked or trusted by many, many people.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Yeah, that I know. I myself neither like her, nor I trust her. She looks to me like a drone on a mission, totally soulless, artificial and determined to kill.

I am not impressed with Trump, either. I tried to watch one of the debates and he didn't have too many smart things to say.

[Rollo]

On a totally different note, I wonder it was the Clinton curse that sank Hillary.


Hillary was a so-called "3rd Term" candidate.

1840 - Van Buren D
1852 - Winfield Scott W
1860 - Stephen Douglas D (a war might have spilt that vote)
1968 - Hubert Humphrey D
1976 - Gerald Ford R
2000 - Al Gore D
2008 - John McCain R
2016 - Hillary Clinton D

Are all 3rd term candidates that failed.


Suprisingly.

1880 - James Garfield R
1908 - Howard Taft R
1928 - Herbert Hoover R
1940 - FDR D
1944 - FDR D
1948 - Harry Truman D
1988 - George HW Bush R

Are all 3rd term candidates that won.

Obama probably would have gone on to be a third term candidate if is wasn't for that pesky 22nd Amendment.

[Stan Reid]

Footnote: In one other third term attempt in his own right, U. S. Grant entered the race for a third term as President in 1880 after taking four years off but couldn't get the Republican nomination although he came very close. The eventual nominee James Garfield did go on to win the Presidency so I expect Grant would also have won.

[D-Type]

What worries me as a non-American is the combination of Republican president, Republican senate and Republican congress. Where are the necessary checks and balances?

[Starter]

What worries me as a non-American is the combination of Republican president, Republican senate and Republican congress. Where are the necessary checks and balances?
None of those three are on the same page as either of the other two. It's going to be interesting to see how it all unfolds.

I also find it interesting about all of the protests and have a couple of questions for them.
1) Why are you protesting now? The election is over.
2) What exactly do you hope to gain?
3) What aren't you willing to at least wait until Trump screws up before complaining? There is a chance, albeit small, that he might do OK.
4) When Obama won you didn't see the other side in the streets pissing and moaning that their candidate didn't win. What makes you think you are so special? Suck it up like the rest of us and wait your turn.

[Stan Reid]

What worries me as a non-American is the combination of Republican president, Republican senate and Republican congress. Where are the necessary checks and balances?

Republicans will have the Supreme Court too. The only check, other than the Constitution, will be the filibuster to block some (but not all) proposals in the Senate.

[Rollo]

What worries me as a non-American is the combination of Republican president, Republican senate and Republican congress. Where are the necessary checks and balances?

In theory, the same place they always were: the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches.
The problem is that unlike a Westminster System where the Executive sits inside the legislature, apart from the President none of the Executive are elected positions. Also, you've managed to politicise the Judicial branch; which is dumb.

Because America has successfully combined the worst possible aspects of First-Past-The-Post, Winner-Takes-All, The Electoral College, and politicised all three branches of government, the very notion that there even are "checks and balances" in the American system of government is a lie. Stop living in fantasy land.


When Obama won you didn't see the other side in the streets pissing and moaning that their candidate didn't win. What makes you think you are so special? Suck it up like the rest of us and wait your turn.

Um, you did. During Congress 111, we heard no end of moaning and whinging; especially in the press. Obama and the administration was painted as Satan incarnate. Stop living in fantasy land.

[Stan Reid]

}Republicans will have the Supreme Court too. The only check, other than the Constitution, will be the filibuster where the Democrats can block some (but not all) proposals in the Senate.{

However, Republicans, being in power, can change the rules to get rid of the filibuster-a tactic known as the "nuclear option". They may not want to do that though because they might want to filibuster at some future date when they are not in power.

[Starter]

While i appreciate that, from the sunny southern hemisphere, you have a better grasp of things than those of us who live here, you have several things wrong.

In theory, the same place they always were: the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches.
The problem is that unlike a Westminster System where the Executive sits inside the legislature, apart from the President none of the Executive are elected positions.
The Vice President was also elected.

Also, you've managed to politicise the Judicial branch; which is dumb.
The judicial branch has always been politicized. In that the sitting President gets to appoint them, with Congress having consent powers. So ALL Supreme Court judges came to the bench with views similar to said President. The kicker here is that the Supreme Court is a life time appointment and you would be surprised how many times the appointment, in the long run, didn't turn out quite the way expected.


Because America has successfully combined the worst possible aspects of First-Past-The-Post, Winner-Takes-All, The Electoral College, and politicised all three branches of government, the very notion that there even are "checks and balances" in the American system of government is a lie. Stop living in fantasy land.
The electoral college is quite often misunderstood. It's a great example of preventing the tyranny of the many over the few. It prevents the more populous states from running over the smaller states to some degree. Especially since the wants and needs of the heavily populated states, ie big cities, are not necessarily in sync with the same of the smaller states which may be bigger in area but not population.


Um, you did. During Congress 111, we heard no end of moaning and whinging; especially in the press. Obama and the administration was painted as Satan incarnate. Stop living in fantasy land.
From the politicians and a small group of the press, yes. You did not see marching in the streets and acts of vandalism, which is what I was talking about.

[Rollo]

The Vice President was also elected.

I think that you'll find that he was appointed by the nominee.



If you want to be pedantic about it, the voters elect the electoral college and the President and Vice-President are appointed by indirect election. It still doesn't change the fact that Veep comes as a job lot and ever since the Twelfth Amendment was passed, they've been tied together.

Unless of course where you are, you do vote sperately for the Veep.


The judicial branch has always been politicized.

And it's always been rubbish. Marbury v. Madison is a classic example with Jefferson, Adams and Madison havign a right barney as far back as 1803. It was never any good to start with.


The electoral college is quite often misunderstood. It's a great example of preventing the tyranny of the many over the few. It prevents the more populous states from running over the smaller states to some degree. Especially since the wants and needs of the heavily populated states, ie big cities, are not necessarily in sync with the same of the smaller states which may be bigger in area but not population.

Technically you could win the Electoral College by carrying only 11 states.

Also, there have now been 5 elections where the president has been voted in with an unpopular vote. This is a sport where the winner won roughly 7% of the time with less points.

But I'll still say that Trump should have won the election. Those were the rules and people should have known that. It doesn't make the result wrong, it makes the rules wrong.

[Stan Reid]

But I'll still say that Trump should have won the election. Those were the rules and people should have known that. It doesn't make the result wrong, it makes the rules wrong.

Clinton may or may not win the popular vote after all the votes are counted and verified but, assuming she does, it's immaterial. Trump was running to win the election not the popular vote. If it was a popular vote election, he would have run an altered campaign and, with the superior staff he'd assembled, he would have won that election as well.

[Rollo]

Trump was running to win the election not the popular vote. If it was a popular vote election, he would have run an altered campaign and, with the superior staff he'd assembled, he would have won that election as well.

Let's back up the dumpster before everyone started throwing in boxes of deplorables before setting the whole lot on fire.

Both the Republicrats and the Democans run an idiotic primary system, which is excessively long and needlessly expensive. In that it took to run the primaries, Australia, Japan, Korea, Austria, Spain, Ireland and Iceland all held their elections inside that time.
Are you really telling me that Trump and Hillary were the best candidates that the parties could have put forward?

If all parties ran say seven candidates and one nationwide election was held on one day, with preferential voting, you could have the whole campaign over in six weeks.

[airshifter]

Posting a photo of his hot wife.

That sort of epitomizes the demographic that voted for him.

Yet your post sort of epitomizes the view of his opposition, that being assumptions of why a person would vote for him, and that those reasons are assumed wrong.



I came back here because I was bored and wanted to read some entertaining comments on the Trump election. 10 years ago this thread would have been a 15 page flame war of epic proportions.

Where have all the interesting people gone (excepting, of course, those still here)?

I think 15 pages is a modest assumption. We would easily be up in the 30's or 40's of pages by now. Just the fact that Roamy showed up to comment would have provoked several pages of those that counter his view. :laugh:

[Storm]

I saw this election cycle up close. I also saw this one coming....obviously I have few things in common with the Republican agenda and an absolute distaste of the nonsense spouted by the Giuliani/Hannity types. But the fact remains that after winning the election pretty fairly you have to give him time to work and then protest it.

Some of my friends are nervous due to the racist/anti semitic incidences in schools (even in CA!) but I hope aren't going to be the norm for 4 years.

Deriding Trump (and rightly so) when he said he may not accept the election if he lost, and then going and doing the same thing yourself when he wins, is ironic or even hypocritical. If indeed more people voted for Hillary, and even among the Trump voters a sense of civility exists (which it surely does among most of them) then the fear of him becoming a dictator is bit paranoid. Of course with house, senate being on his side, he indeed is in prime position to pass laws which will upset a majority of the people.

I still feel that he will not be able to implement all the things he said he would (neither would he actually want to), even if he is not a politician, he knows what to say to get votes!

[Starter]

I saw this election cycle up close. I also saw this one coming....obviously I have few things in common with the Republican agenda and an absolute distaste of the nonsense spouted by the Giuliani/Hannity types. But the fact remains that after winning the election pretty fairly you have to give him time to work and then protest it.
He is the President elect, like it or not, so I agree that giving him time to prove himself is only fair. Some of the Republican agenda I agree with. For instance that smaller government is better government.


Some of my friends are nervous due to the racist/anti semitic incidences in schools (even in CA!) but I hope aren't going to be the norm for 4 years.
Actually I think this is a good thing. Those people feel they can come out and say those things now. In reality what they have done is expose themselves for the fools that they are for all to see instead of hiding in the shadows.


Deriding Trump (and rightly so) when he said he may not accept the election if he lost, and then going and doing the same thing yourself when he wins, is ironic or even hypocritical. If indeed more people voted for Hillary, and even among the Trump voters a sense of civility exists (which it surely does among most of them) then the fear of him becoming a dictator is bit paranoid. Of course with house, senate being on his side, he indeed is in prime position to pass laws which will upset a majority of the people.
Don't count on the House & Senate walking in lock step with him. On some things yes, on others not so much.


I still feel that he will not be able to implement all the things he said he would (neither would he actually want to), even if he is not a politician, he knows what to say to get votes!
I expect it to be an interesting four years. It also will be interesting to see if he does well enough to re run.

[Rollo]

I think that one of the reasons why Trump won is embodied in this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRp1CK_X_Yw

When people take their advice from a bunch of celebrities than thinking through policy, it shouldn't be surprising when a reality TV star wins office.
The amount of hypocrisy displayed by the very existence of this video is palpable.

The social-left's failure in this election was to engage the population who didn't care about identity politics. The Trump campaign actually bothered to speak to people in the rust belt who had more pressing problems and ironically, his rhetoric about tariffs and jobs, is further to the economic-left than the Democrats.

The Democrats actually had a semi-revolt on economic grounds within their ranks in the form of Sanders and instead of bothering to address the issue, the DNC pulled a shifty.

What we have now in Trump, is a great section of the American public who want to throw a giant orange Molotov Cocktail into the establishment and Hillary is so far up the establishment, she disappeared up her own convention.

[Rollo]

If indeed more people voted for Hillary, and even among the Trump voters a sense of civility exists (which it surely does among most of them) then the fear of him becoming a dictator is bit paranoid.

I can't honestly think of a genuine political dictator. Every dictator that I can think of in history, rose because they had the backing of the military. When you have Pentagon Chiefs of Staff who are suspicious of Trump, that seems impossible.

[Stan Reid]

Clinton didn't or couldn't work as hard as Trump so maybe it was her health that did her in.

[janvanvurpa]

I can't honestly think of a genuine political dictator. Every dictator that I can think of in history, rose because they had the backing of the military. When you have Pentagon Chiefs of Staff who are suspicious of Trump, that seems impossible.

Seems you forgot last century's big one who was elected in 1932 and 1933 which brought Adolph and his gang to power.

[Storm]

^But the party never had an absolute majority I think and they did plenty of shenanigans to gain that power by twisting the senile Hindenburg's arm.

[Rollo]

<THX Noise>
....
................
........................................
.................................................. .................. GODWIN'S LAW INVOKED!
</THX Noise>



Seems you forgot last century's big one who was elected in 1932 and 1933 which brought Adolph and his gang to power.

I was not aware that Adolf did not have the backing of the military. I'm pretty sure that Machtergreifung was a thing. I'm also pretty sure that those guys in brown shirts and called themselves the Sturmabteilung, were also a thing.

Shall I defer to your better knowledge and assume your worldview that this was just the Tony winning performance of an elaborate theatre company?

[janvanvurpa]

<THX Noise>
....
................
........................................
.................................................. .................. GODWIN'S LAW INVOKED!
</THX Noise>




I was not aware that Adolf did not have the backing of the military. I'm pretty sure that Machtergreifung was a thing. I'm also pretty sure that those guys in brown shirts and called themselves the Sturmabteilung, were also a thing.

Shall I defer to your better knowledge and assume your worldview that this was just the Tony winning performance of an elaborate theatre company?

Everything I can read from all sides current and later there was zero "love" or respect for the "Austrian Corporal" from the Prussian dominated Officier class of the German military..begiining thru the end
The...SS* and SA** (SS being Sturm Staffel and SA being Sturm Abteilung, and SS was originally part of SA) on the other hand were a "Private Army"... In fact the SA was soon to be purged because they were too leftie)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

The one similarity I see is that the mainstay of who voted for Adolph and Friends and who voted for the Orange Thing with a dead Animal on his head were both "disaffected voters"..then primarily low level low educated shopkeeper class (and try and remember how old cities were with every block lined on ground floor with shops after shops after shop...for greens or coal or stationery or newspapers or apotek or whatever) LOTS of shopkeepers.. The did exit polling then too.. According to what I have read (some KPD analysis and oral histories of KPD people and later writing by active players in that election) These shopkeepers felt 'threatened by the rising income and social status of working class people'...In THAT we see similarity that in the old induftrial areas we call "The Rust Belt", there is an enormous seething discontent..hate even....and a demagogue like Drumph can easily point at a whole lotta people and say to these pissed off people who have been fawked and are pissed "Its all THEIR fault"..

Worked then, works now..

Oh the other obvious parallell: YUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGELY absurd claims that "Only I can save you"

Since most Americans are authoritarian followers, that works every time.




*SS tended to be "middle class"
**SA tended to be "working class" and unemployed

[Starter]

....then primarily low level low educated shopkeeper class....
One important thing to remember (and many lefties tend to forget this) is that uneducated is not synonymous with unintelligent. The first can be fixed fairly easily and the second can't be fixed.


These shopkeepers felt 'threatened by the rising income and social status of working class people'...
That's not what has happened here. The working class is not advancing in income or status and that was a driving reason in so many of them abandoning their traditional support for the Democratic candidate.


Since most Americans are authoritarian followers, that works every time.
So are most people everywhere.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Since most Americans are authoritarian followers, that works every time.


Not necessarily. I would say that a lot of Americans are just followers of whatever media and corporations sell them. Otherwise I can't explain Britney Spears, Kardashians etc. Americans will buy almost anything properly promoted and still think they have made their choice freely.

[janvanvurpa]

Not necessarily. I would say that a lot of Americans are just followers of whatever media and corporations sell them. Otherwise I can't explain Britney Spears, Kardashians etc. Americans will buy almost anything properly promoted and still think they have made their choice freely.

Oh that is true but the "authority" in that case is the voice and pictures of the TV advert.

Best illustration is Home Simpson who, the instant the TV shows a image of "Blatz Beer" he begins mumbling "must consume Blatz beer, must consume Blatz beet"

Some might say its Pavlovian conditioning, but plenty of serious research agrees about the essentially authoritarian follower nature of a good majority of Americans.

And I know and history shows that the tendency is strong in many places. Heres a nice look at the particular North American strain:

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/TheAuthoritarians.pdf

[janvanvurpa]

One important thing to remember (and many lefties tend to forget this) is that uneducated is not synonymous with unintelligent. The first can be fixed fairly easily and the second can't be fixed.

What an insulting statement and perfect demonstration.
First I doubt you have ever met or spoken at any length with a "leftie" in the meaning it has in the majority of the world.

Second, the link between conservatism, and authoritarianism is well established and it is "what everybody says" which counts for conservatives...and part and parcel with conservatism is a hierarchical class structure....and a major marker of position in the social hierarchy is schooling (which is a different thing entirely from education but is usually, by uneducated people, conflated) So it is in fact so-called conservatives who habitually equate "educated" with intelligence. It helps them to justify social differences.

No real leftie would ever do that since we do not confuse "schooling" with education.



The working class is not advancing in income or status and that was a driving reason in so many of them abandoning their traditional support for the Democratic candidate.

Thank you Captain Obvious...



So are most people everywhere.

"most"? "everywhere"? I think people have finally realised 25 years after the fact that the Democrats under Bill Clinton and onward have abandoned their tradition broad based working class base and embraced fully Wall Street and the social elite, what has been called "The Creative Class" like "Technology entrepreneurs" and Wall Street bond traders and Investment bankers and Bio-tech entrepreneurs...in short they are and support a meritocracy: if you did good and make a lotta dough we're your buddies.
Look at all the record profits and salaries of hi tech and bankers and bond trading since the Bush collapse of 08... That's where all the recovery is.

People are pissed. Drumph promised to make Merikuh great again and they voted against "more of the same" and nothing more.

Such a shame that nobody has thought too hard about policy and ability to follow thru with such grand but vague promises..

[Rollo]

One important thing to remember (and many lefties tend to forget this) is that uneducated is not synonymous with unintelligent. The first can be fixed fairly easily and the second can't be fixed.

Please define what you mean by the "left".
One important thing to remember is that the terms " the left" and "lefties" in most profit driven media is synonymous with "everyone that I don't like".

As far as demographics go, uneducated is synonymous with "not educated" to the extent that in America "educated" entails a college degree and "not educated" means that someone doesn't have one.



That's not what has happened here. The working class is not advancing in income or status and that was a driving reason in so many of them abandoning their traditional support for the Democratic candidate.

I'd argue that America never had a labour party in any traditional sense. People like Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan bascially enshrined that in legislation; hence the reason why the middle class has been almost neatly surgically removed from the economy.

The underlying reason is R>G but as a rightie (which I assume that you are on the basis or your previous pejorative comments), you already knew that.

[Starter]

Please define what you mean by the "left".
One important thing to remember is that the terms " the left" and "lefties" in most profit driven media is synonymous with "everyone that I don't like".
??? What media other than perhaps PBS in America and BBC is not basically profit driven. Without large government subsidies you still have to make a buck to stay in business. The left and right varies a great deal depending on the culture and country and I understand that, but we were talking about the recent American election


As far as demographics go, uneducated is synonymous with "not educated" to the extent that in America "educated" entails a college degree and "not educated" means that someone doesn't have one.
And how would you define the difference where you are? Once again, we were talking about America and not somewhere else.


I'd argue that America never had a labour party in any traditional sense. People like Nixon, Ford, Carter and Reagan bascially enshrined that in legislation; hence the reason why the middle class has been almost neatly surgically removed from the economy.
Not sure where you are going with this one. Perhaps you could elaborate?


The underlying reason is R>G but as a rightie (which I assume that you are on the basis or your previous pejorative comments), you already knew that.
You would assume wrong. While I lean somewhat to the right (as it's known here as opposed to other places) I did not support Trump nor did I vote for him. i regard him as a loose cannon (No insult intended to the very fine beer of the same name brewed in Baltimore.). My candidate of first choice was much closer to the center, but unfortunately was eliminated in the primaries.

[Rollo]

The left and right varies a great deal depending on the culture and country and I understand that, but we were talking about the recent American election


How do you define "the left"?

[Rudy Tamasz]

In response to janvan, the so called creative class is what the modern day left looks like due to: a) the disappearance of the classic working class in western countries and; b) due to the shift of the leftist paradigm from Lenin to Gramsci.

Sent from my Lenovo P70-A using Tapatalk

[Starter]

How do you define "the left"?
I define the left as those who believe somewhat more in the "group" as opposed to the individual. I'll be the first to say that there are places where the "group" makes sense because it can leverage things better (think fire and police departments, mutual funds, insurance for a couple examples), people leaning more to the left want to extend that to many more areas and/or also want to force people to participate.

Here there is also the elitist attitude of many in the far left who project the image that they know what is good for me and, since I don't agree, I must be uneducated or stupid, or both, and therefor not qualified to make my own decisions about how I choose to live. Big Brother is alive and well in the left.

[Rollo]

I define the left as those who believe somewhat more in the "group" as opposed to the individual. I'll be the first to say that there are places where the "group" makes sense because it can leverage things better (think fire and police departments, mutual funds, insurance for a couple examples), people leaning more to the left want to extend that to many more areas and/or also want to force people to participate.

It think that we mostly agree here.

With reference to this:


That's not what has happened here. The working class is not advancing in income or status and that was a driving reason in so many of them abandoning their traditional support for the Democratic candidate.

Maybe under LBJ and the "Great Society" there would have been economic leftist support for the Democrats but the 1968 DNC was an absolute zoo fight and that basically put paid to that as the Democrats tore themselves to pieces.

The Republicans shifted to the economic right, following the rails that Goldwater was already on; with Nixon smashing health care to pieces and Reagan kicking the unions. But Jimmy Carter started the run towards deregulation and Clinton didn't help matters.

This is why I don't understand why there would be traditional support for the Democrats among the working class. Logically there shouldn't be because they haven't given process workers a better deal than Republicans.

[Jag_Warrior]

Yeah, that I know. I myself neither like her, nor I trust her. She looks to me like a drone on a mission, totally soulless, artificial and determined to kill.

I am not impressed with Trump, either. I tried to watch one of the debates and he didn't have too many smart things to say.

I used to be quite a Trump fan back in the 80's. Mainly because he was a brash real estate operator and that's also how I saw myself back then. But since then, things have changed... for both of us. So for me, it came down to who I could vote for and not turn my stomach. I chose to go 3rd party (again).

In certain quarters, it also didn't help her that the left-leaning pop media (backed by Hollyweird) and the leftist political elites (including Madeleine Albright, N.O.W., etc.) claimed that all criticism of Hillary Clinton was based on sexism and misogyny - and that there was a special place in Hell for women who didn't support her. Hypocritical Identity Politics and the constant whining of the PC/Social Justice Warrior types has worn thin with many people in this country, even those of us who were not Trump supporters, and are not married to one party or the other. I had no intention of voting for either one of them. But in a two horse race, if forced to choose only between the kook and the crook, I would have voted for him. And it appears that the demographic that we were told would reject Trump en masse (middle class, White women), actually went for Donald. I believe that he even picked up more Hispanic votes than was projected by the pollsters. So again, not everyone in this nation has bought into divisive Identity Politics.

As for the types of people who supported Trump (specifically the Alt-right that we keep hearing about), IMO, some of Clinton's supporters were every bit as deplorable as some of Trump's supporters. The difference being, the media has focused solely on the miscreants who were on Trump's bandwagon and let Hillary's flakes remain very, very low on the radar. Again, that's something that many in middle America took notice of... and it did not help her with them.

My hope going forward is that Trump realizes that he has been elected President and not emperor. Despite the fact that the media will spin things differently for him than had Hillary been elected, the proof will still be in the pudding - and the people should be able to judge the results for themselves. And even if it results in greater deficit spending (which I realize is a dangerous path to be on), I hope that he focuses on real infrastructure improvements and making sure that all present and future trade deals are both free and fair. Immigration (both legal and illegal) and entitlements are two more areas that have to be addressed. So as we begin this journey on the Trump Train, we do know that it won't be business as usual - I think that's a certainty. I just hope that means something generally good for our republic.

BTW, it's good to see some old names pop back up again. I wondered where some of you had been (slumming on FakeBook, I suspected :p).

[Rollo]

I had no intention of voting for either one of them. But in a two horse race, if forced to choose only between the kook and the crook, I would have voted for him.

Plan:

- Abolish primaries
- Put seven candidates from the major parties on the ballot
- Preferential Instant Run-Off Voting
- Compulsory Voting
- Elections on Saturday or make the Tuesday an official Civic Public Holiday

Proportional Representation in the House of Reps might be a nice idea as well.

[Starter]

Plan:

- Abolish primaries
Either that or require that primaries be open to all registered voters instead of same party only.


- Put seven candidates from the major parties on the ballot
How do you decide which seven?


- Preferential Instant Run-Off Voting
??


- Compulsory Voting
Not a chance.


- Elections on Saturday or make the Tuesday an official Civic Public Holiday
Do you really think that will increase voter turn out? Or will the ones who don't vote now just enjoy another paid day off.


Proportional Representation in the House of Reps might be a nice idea as well.
The house is proportional to population now. Or are you talking about proportional to registered party members? Or both?

[Rollo]

??

Preferential Instant Run-Off Voting

http://comparing-singapore-and-australi.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/2/7/23277828/5805977_orig.gif

By preference - number every box.

The candidiate with the fewest number of 1's is eliminated and their number 2 preferences are distributed.

Repeat process until one candidate has 50%+1 of the votes.



Do you really think that will increase voter turn out? Or will the ones who don't vote now just enjoy another paid day off.

I'd like to see your reasons for defending voting on a Tuesday in the 21st Century.



The house is proportional to population now. Or are you talking about proportional to registered party members? Or both?

The House has never been proportional to the number of votes that the parties receive. There are no third parties represented at all in the House.
Also, apart from the at-large seats, the seats in the House are also gerrymandered to the point that there are almost no proper contests.

[Starter]

Preferential Instant Run-Off Voting

http://comparing-singapore-and-australi.weebly.com/uploads/2/3/2/7/23277828/5805977_orig.gif

By preference - number every box.

The candidiate with the fewest number of 1's is eliminated and their number 2 preferences are distributed.

Repeat process until one candidate has 50%+1 of the votes.
Ah, OK I like that.


I'd like to see your reasons for defending voting on a Tuesday in the 21st Century.
Because it doesn't interfere with TGIF partying?
But I was really talking about the abysmal number of qualified voters who actually take the trouble to vote. I seriously doubt that there would be any real increase in the number of voters. Additionally, the lower end of wage earners who might have difficulty taking off work during the week to vote are in retailing sorts of jobs and they are working on weekends too.


The House has never been proportional to the number of votes that the parties receive. There are no third parties represented at all in the House.
That would pretty much require a Constitutional amendment and the chances of that are about the same as my winning the WDC title next year.


Also, apart from the at-large seats, the seats in the House are also gerrymandered to the point that there are almost no proper contests.

I could not agree more on the gerrymandering. It's an embarrassment to the system and both major parties use it whenever possible. Needs to be outlawed.

[Rollo]

That would pretty much require a Constitutional amendment and the chances of that are about the same as my winning the WDC title next year.

Doesn't.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

- Article I, Section 2, Clause 1, United States Constitution, 17th Sep 1789.

The chances of having Proportional Representation are about the same as Frosty The Snowman's chance of finding work shovelling people's driveways in Hades but that's because to actually make it so, requires passing said legislation through The House of Representatives and Senate.
It's a bit hard to tell people to take their snouts out of the trough when they're fast asleep in it.

[Tom206wrc]

Do you think Donald Trump has Something to do with GM wanting to quit Europe and sell its european activites(Opel/Vauxhall)to PSA :confused:

This is currently the biggest news in european automotive area...

[Mark]

I very much doubt it. GM has been in big trouble for a long time. Vauxhall being owned by Peugeot seems a very odd choice, although they keep the Peugeot and Citroen brands quite seperate so I think they'll keep it as a going concern.

[Owain]

I reckon PSA just want to buy Opel-Vauxhall so they can shut it down, leaving a whole load of customers looking for other affordable brands to buy. Cue special offers on Peugeots and Citroëns for all recent buyers of Opels or Vauxhalls. That's not too cynical, is it?

I wouldn't imagine Trump has anything to do with it at all. As Mark says, Opel-Vauxhall has been losing money for years. There was an attempt to sell to Canadian parts firm Magma some time ago, but it fell through.

[Rollo]

Do you think Donald Trump has Something to do with GM wanting to quit Europe and sell its european activites(Opel/Vauxhall)to PSA :confused:

This is currently the biggest news in european automotive area...

No.

GM have an ongoing pension problem caused by the fact that they always intended to pay pensions out of future sales and saved nothing for the future ever. This was the biggest underlying thing behind the Chapter XI ordeal and GM Europe are just a sideshow in the general malaise.

[Mark]

I doubt Peugeot would get rid of the Vauxhall brand. It's regarded as being 'British' and that is still important for some. You drop Vauxhall and people won't just buy Peugeot instead, they would be more likely to buy the other 'British' brand, Ford.

[Rollo]

GM has been in big trouble for a long time.

Aside:

Holden is absolutely screwed.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C5n4_TVU0AABgIP.jpg

Green = Opel cars which will not be available to Holden if sold to PSA. GMH has announced that if the deal goes through, no Opels would be sold under the Holden label; which includes the next Insignia as the "next-gen" Commodore.

Red = No future RHD models exist. Malibu ends in Jun 2017. Cruze ends in Oct 2017.

Black = Discontinued. Production ends Oct 2017; along with the end of motor manufacturing in Australia.

Aside aside:
The 2018 V8 Supercar season currently has no available cars apart from the Nissan Altima. The Falcon has already ceased production and is now a legacy car and the Commodore would be discontinued.

[Starter]

Aside:

Aside aside:
The 2018 V8 Supercar season currently has no available cars apart from the Nissan Altima. The Falcon has already ceased production and is now a legacy car and the Commodore would be discontinued.
Some of the best racing on the planet. What is the plan going forward?

[Rollo]

Some of the best racing on the planet. What is the plan going forward?

From what I heard on the radio this morning unless DJR Penske is able to homologate the Mustang and some large car appears in the Holden line up (possibly the Camaro, who knows), there isn't really one. The Gen-2 rules are being written up but it's all academic with no cars.

[amish119]

Those were the rules and people should have known that. It doesn't make the result wrong, it makes the rules wrong.

[Bagwan]

I'm not really sure how to start this up again , or , indeed if I should , but , having stated that , I'll just ask if the American people still have faith in their president ?
I watched some of that funeral today , and it sounds like a good person was lost for no good reason .

I'm reminded of a line in a song by a group called "Jaluka"(I think) that says "We are all scatterlings of Africa , each uprooted one ." .

Maybe it would be better if we were all identical .

[Rudy Tamasz]

I wonder why the Pres is the one to blame for a local outbreak of violence between the alt-left and alt-right. Maybe it's because the Pres is a convenient scapegoat for anything that goes wrong, just like Obama used to get blamed for the things he had nothing to do with.

Sent from my Lenovo P70-A using Tapatalk

[Bagwan]

I wonder why the Pres is the one to blame for a local outbreak of violence between the alt-left and alt-right. Maybe it's because the Pres is a convenient scapegoat for anything that goes wrong, just like Obama used to get blamed for the things he had nothing to do with.

Sent from my Lenovo P70-A using Tapatalk

Do you think he is ?

[Mark]

It doesn't matter if he is or not. But he's handled it incredibly badly.

[zako85]

The most amazing thing I have learned from Trump's electoral campaign is that scandals, bad news, and lots of negative coverage is actually better than no media coverage at all. The mainstream media wanted to sink Trump just as much as both of the American parties wanted to (including his own). But all those juicy Trump scandals and outrageous speeches meant higher ratings for TV channels and lots of clicks for web news. And after all, who could have thought that getting so much negative media coverage will only prop up the guy enough to beat every republican opponent and even Hillary Clinton. It's the paradox of our time. Conclusion: if you want to do something to hurt Trump's presidency just stop covering him at all.

[zako85]

It doesn't matter if he is or not. But he's handled it incredibly badly.

The president was on a busy schedule on his China trip, probably holding extremely important talks on how to avoid a war, possibly a nuclear war, when all of this shit storm suddenly hit the fan. I can see how he could how made a statement that rubbed most people the wrong way in the middle of those circumstances for not being informed well enough. But the things he said when he came back to the US only made things worse. But then again, as I noted in my previous post, we live in the strange world where negative coverage can prop up a politician like Trump instead of sinking him.

[Gregor-y]

What China trip? He's was golfing at his own resort in New Jersey the entire time.

[Rollo]

The most amazing thing I have learned from Trump's electoral campaign is that scandals, bad news, and lots of negative coverage is actually better than no media coverage at all.

Trump's approval rating has basically gone nowhere ever.
He's been bouncing along in the mid to high 30s since the beginning of "this American Carnage".

In theory, the Republicans should be able to pass whatever legislation it wants to because they control all the levers of government and all the three rings in the circus but they haven't been able to to achieve a legislative agenda, because it appears as though they don't really have one.
Trump equally doesn't seem to have a legislative agenda either. He just wants the credit for signing off on the bits of paper.

[Big Ben]

Trump's approval rating has basically gone nowhere ever.
He's been bouncing along in the mid to high 30s since the beginning of "this American Carnage".



It turns out that when he said he could shoot someone and not lose any voter he was actually right. He was quite astute and I, honestly, feel pretty naive. I was also very sure that this is going to be 'only' a 4 year calamity but I'm not anymore. It turns out his voters voted him with all the excuses prepared for his future failures. Who can compete against that? I used to doubt the utility of term limits. I thought, if someone's doing an excellent job why shouldn't we be able to elect him for more than 2 terms? It's because people are idiots. That rule is a permanent reminder that, despite some amazing achievements, the humankind consists, mostly, of idiots. We can be so stupid that we need to enforce some random limits to limit future collective brain farts, because we know we have the ability to really f*** up.

[Rudy Tamasz]

A bunch of deplorables the humankind is...

Sent from my Lenovo P70-A using Tapatalk

[Starter]

It turns out that when he said he could shoot someone and not lose any voter he was actually right. He was quite astute and I, honestly, feel pretty naive. I was also very sure that this is going to be 'only' a 4 year calamity but I'm not anymore. It turns out his voters voted him with all the excuses prepared for his future failures. Who can compete against that? I used to doubt the utility of term limits. I thought, if someone's doing an excellent job why shouldn't we be able to elect him for more than 2 terms? It's because people are idiots. That rule is a permanent reminder that, despite some amazing achievements, the humankind consists, mostly, of idiots. We can be so stupid that we need to enforce some random limits to limit future collective brain farts, because we know we have the ability to really f*** up.
I'm doubting he can get a second term. Yes, his base is solid and will stay with him. But he won the election only because Hillary was his opponent. Many of the people who voted for Trump only did so because they perceived the other alternative as worse. Don't forget that he did not win the popular vote, the election was decided in the Electoral College. A one or two state swing would have seen him defeated.

The next election is going to be chaotic. Many conservatives have already had more than enough of Trump and most likely will not support him again. The liberals are, to be polite, in disarray and the independents have no really viable candidate or platform.

[Rudy Tamasz]

Must be a systemic problem, if the voters in the biggest democracy in the world have to choose between two substandard candidates.

[Bagwan]

Alec Baldwin might work .

[Rudy Tamasz]

I'd prefer Clint Eastwood.

Sent from my Lenovo P70-A using Tapatalk

[Bagwan]

I'd prefer Clint Eastwood.

Sent from my Lenovo P70-A using Tapatalk

Well , if you're going there , you might as well go as far as Chuck Norris , dude .
That'd petrify Putin , and curtail Kim .

[Rudy Tamasz]

As old as he is, Chuck might be sexy enough to petrify Putin. Not sure he would pay much attention to Kim, though. She's not his type.

Are we talking about the same Kim, by the way?

Sent from my Lenovo P70-A using Tapatalk

[Bagwan]

That Li'l miss'll not be the one I was thinking of .
She's the bomb , but that other Li'l Kim has a certain intercontinental appeal .

[donKey jote]

Intercontinental appeal... what, like Billy's missus? :bandit:

[Tazio]

Intercontinental appeal... what, like Billy's missus? :bandit:You're selling her short. I think you are confusing intercontinental with intergalactic. No I mean universal!! :angel:

[Bagwan]

Intercontinental appeal... what, like Billy's missus? :bandit:

Speaking of Billy's missus , what was that I heard about golden showers over Moscow way ?

[Big Ben]

"People say we have the best relationship of any president-president, because he's called president also. Some people might call him the king of China, but he's called president."
Trump talking about Xi Jinping.

[Starter]

I was wondering just yesterday about the total lack of political content recently here. Some of the discussions used to be interesting even with the amount of America bashing that went on. I figured that there would be even more trumpeting about Trump (sorry), but instead......crickets. What happened? All the politically inclined members are bust doing other things? Brexit showed that the USA isn't the only country with a large group of buffoons at the voting booths? Everybody too busy with their fitbits?

Currently the "King of China" is eating everybody's lunch.

[Big Ben]

With Trump president, people might have realized that America wasn't that bad before after all. What's now to discuss? Is anybody here who doesn't think that Trump's horrible?

[Starter]

With Trump president, people might have realized that America wasn't that bad before after all. What's now to discuss? Is anybody here who doesn't think that Trump's horrible?
I don't remember anyone here being in favor of Trump before. We can always discuss how bad it can get though, because I'm pretty sure Trump hasn't hit bottom yet. He may actually be quite a ways from his potential bottom.

[driveace]

I like the guy
He is not MY President ,but he is different and so will be America
He is trying to stop the massive deaths through drug abuse which is bigger killer than guns or cars
I think he will sort the healthcare issue out too.He is different from previous Presidents
I hear that the Americans didnt like either Obama or George "W" ,but did like George Snr
We can send you our London Mayor over if your not happy as he is hated by millions here

[Starter]

I like the guy
He is not MY President ,but he is different and so will be America
He is trying to stop the massive deaths through drug abuse which is bigger killer than guns or cars
I think he will sort the healthcare issue out too.He is different from previous Presidents
I hear that the Americans didnt like either Obama or George "W" ,but did like George Snr
We can send you our London Mayor over if your not happy as he is hated by millions here
Trade you straight up, your London mayor for Nancy Pelosi.

[Big Ben]

I find the fact that Trump exists annoying enough. The fact that he's the president of USA is quite depressing. In a normal society he should clean toilets for a living. In our society he's a ?illionare president. He's been lying for so long about his wealth and success that no-one really knows how rich he is. I can very well understand why people are sick of traditional politicians. I'm tired myself about all these fake politically correct bullsh!t politicians but voting a rude, megalomaniac, slow-witted jackass is not the answer. to anything.

[Bagwan]

"Slow witted" apparently has an IQ of 168 .

Although the first thing I thought of was how easy it might be , with that much money , to get a big head to do the test for you , it also called me to think more about the man's public persona .

The "crazy man with his finger on the button" might just be the role played by a much smarter actor than we realize .
Pipeline deals get signed quietly while he tweets insults at Arnold for the press .

The problem for the smartest man in the room , though , apart from believing he is , is that those around him are maybe too smart to go down with him , toeing his line .

[steveaki13]

I find the fact that Trump exists annoying enough. The fact that he's the president of USA is quite depressing. In a normal society he should clean toilets for a living. In our society he's a ?illionare president. He's been lying for so long about his wealth and success that no-one really knows how rich he is. I can very well understand why people are sick of traditional politicians. I'm tired myself about all these fake politically correct bullsh!t politicians but voting a rude, megalomaniac, slow-witted jackass is not the answer. to anything.

I dislike Trumps view point and general approach too. However you say he should be cleaning toilets. The guy has got himself into business and been a success from that point of view. For that he deserves his success and credit. You can't just dismiss him as a being because you don't like his view point.

He stood for President and won so that speaks volumes about the opinion of many in the US I guess. Plus as you say people do get tired of the same old political situations.

[driveace]

Well lets see how he deals with the latest terrorist attack on New York
He has the balls to call them what they are .
And he knows which countries passport holders will not be getting a travel visa to travel yo USA
Lets hope he deals with it better than Obama would ,as seemed scared of taking the Muslim terrorists ON

[donKey jote]

A guy drives into random people -> International Terrorism!!! US under attack!!! Obama's fault for not taking on FELLOW MUSLIM terrorists!!! Extreme vetting of MUSLIMS!!!

A guy shoots 58 random people -> Too soon for knee-jerk reactions, thoughts and prayers yadda yadda

Spot the similarities, spot the differences?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/01/donald-trump-reaction-terror-make-america-terrified-las-vegas-massacre

[Bagwan]

A guy drives into random people -> International Terrorism!!! US under attack!!! Obama's fault for not taking on FELLOW MUSLIM terrorists!!! Extreme vetting of MUSLIMS!!!

A guy shoots 58 random people -> Too soon for knee-jerk reactions, thoughts and prayers yadda yadda

Spot the similarities, spot the differences?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/01/donald-trump-reaction-terror-make-america-terrified-las-vegas-massacre

Ban Home Depot truck rentals but leave bump-stocks alone !

[Rudy Tamasz]

A guy drives into random people -> International Terrorism!!! US under attack!!! Obama's fault for not taking on FELLOW MUSLIM terrorists!!! Extreme vetting of MUSLIMS!!!

A guy shoots 58 random people -> Too soon for knee-jerk reactions, thoughts and prayers yadda yadda

Spot the similarities, spot the differences?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/01/donald-trump-reaction-terror-make-america-terrified-las-vegas-massacre

The point is, the Vegas shooter was born a U.S. citizen and one could not stop him from being born and becoming a mass murderer. The NY guy moved to the U.S. fairly recently and got radicalized on the American soil. To me it is perfectly logical to limit the number of psychos you have to deal with to those native born and stop importing the foreign ones.

It's like whether your blood relative commits a crime or your in-law commits a crime. In both cases it's bad, but in the former case there's nothing you can do about it, and in the latter case you'll keep thinking: "$hit! Why somebody brought this @#$% to our family?!" Same thing, but the attitude will be different and it's perfectly explicable.

[Bagwan]

The point is, the Vegas shooter was born a U.S. citizen and one could not stop him from being born and becoming a mass murderer. The NY guy moved to the U.S. fairly recently and got radicalized on the American soil. To me it is perfectly logical to limit the number of psychos you have to deal with to those native born and stop importing the foreign ones.

It's like whether your blood relative commits a crime or your in-law commits a crime. In both cases it's bad, but in the former case there's nothing you can do about it, and in the latter case you'll keep thinking: "$hit! Why somebody brought this @#$% to our family?!" Same thing, but the attitude will be different and it's perfectly explicable.

You play to your crowd , Rudy .

Tip-toe around domestic gun violence , to keep the faith armed , though hundreds were hit .
Then stomp on the foreigner , to arm the faith that the retribution will be ten times worse .

Truth is , though , that hundreds could have been saved had someone noticed that the "bump-stock" circumvented the law , making a semi , full-auto , effectively .
It's a little hard to imagine that nobody noticed , but , if that is , indeed true , they cannot have missed this event showing how deadly the item can be .
A ban would be simple , and much more likely with the incident fresh in memory .

However , we now have one of those foreigners dead to rights to keep our minds occupied .

That point you made is just what they'll use as reasoning to take more freedom away from the US citizen and be able to watch them closer .

[donKey jote]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=CDF3tv1JYRA

[Rollo]

The point is, the Vegas shooter was born a U.S. citizen and one could not stop him from being born and becoming a mass murderer.

You could enact proper law which would have made it difficult for him to purchase the instruments which could be used to destroy that many people.

Literally no other country in the OECD has the same idiotic rate of gun deaths as the United States. Why is this acceptable? Because MURICA SECOND AMENDMENT, where the freedom to rip people apart is more important than those stupid pathetic concepts of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

[steveaki13]

I laughed out loud today as I walked through a book shop today and saw "The poetry of Trump"

[Bagwan]

I laughed out loud today as I walked through a book shop today and saw "The poetry of Trump"

Did you buy it ?

[steveaki13]

Haha. No I think my hand may have fallen off before purchase

Sent from my GT-I9301I using Tapatalk

[D-Type]

Has he decided that grey hair looks more credible than orange?

[Rollo]

White person shoots 58 people = not a terrorist. White person shoots 26 people = not a terrorist.

Brown person kills 8 people = terrorist.

Thanks, Mr Trump. I understand now.

[henners88]

Well this is my first comment on Trump and after nearly a year in the hot seat I think he’s done a lot of things we predicted.

He’s repeatedly made a fool of himself on social media, done not an awful lot in a political sense other than stir and he’s blamed everybody around him. He’s the embarrassment we all said he was and without doubt the most unprofessional President in the history of the United States. He’s kept the entertainment gossip columns busy and provided the rest of the world with endless laughs so we him to thank for that! So far so good


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Starter]

Well this is my first comment on Trump and after nearly a year in the hot seat I think he’s done a lot of things we predicted.

He’s repeatedly made a fool of himself on social media, done not an awful lot in a political sense other than stir and he’s blamed everybody around him. He’s the embarrassment we all said he was and without doubt the most unprofessional President in the history of the United States. He’s kept the entertainment gossip columns busy and provided the rest of the world with endless laughs so we him to thank for that! So far so good
Agree. These days any source of a laugh is a good one.

[nealst10]

Yeah, I think and they did plenty of shenanigans to gain that power by twisting the senile Hindenburg's arm.

[Rollo]

White person shoots 58 people = not a terrorist. White person shoots 26 people = not a terrorist.


White person shoots 17 people in a high school = not a terrorist.

[Starter]

So, exactly what is the difference between a psychopath and a terrorist?

[Gregor-y]

How white one is, apparently.