President Trump

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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"?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jag_Warrior

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Plan:

- Abolish primaries

---

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

Quote:

---

- Put seven candidates from the major parties on the ballot

---

How do you decide which seven?

Quote:

---

- Preferential Instant Run-Off Voting

---

??

Quote:

---

- Compulsory Voting

---

Not a chance.

Quote:

---

- 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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

??

---

Preferential Instant Run-Off Voting

http://comparing-singapore-and-austr...05977_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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

Preferential Instant Run-Off Voting

http://comparing-singapore-and-austr...05977_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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

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...

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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...

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Starter

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.

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

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 .

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Do you think he is ?

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

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.

A bunch of deplorables the humankind is...

Sent from my Lenovo P70-A using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Ben

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.

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

Alec Baldwin might work .

I'd prefer Clint Eastwood.

Sent from my Lenovo P70-A using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rudy Tamasz

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 .

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

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 .

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by donKey jote

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: