Why Trump Won

[Ralph]

Obama ended the war in Iraq before he started it again. No boots on the ground.

Ended it? Really? Just a few months ago 4000 US troops on ground www.military.com/daily-news/2016/02...q-more-than-4000-exceeds-previous-claims.html

9/2016: Number of troops heading toward 6000. http://www.jauncole/2016/09/number-troops-heading.html

Another left wing blatant lie or another example of left wing enabling of the big lies? You choose.

One thing is certain. Its easy to tell when a lefty lies....they attempt to communicate, when they talk their mouths move proving they are still lying. When they post...the parrot the latest left wing lies. It never fails. With each post from any liberal...the lie can be documented.

 

[sear]

R #81

Excellent!

Please educate us all.
How much time must elapse in you wise and all-encompassing dictum, how much geographic distance must there be for one military engagement be distinguished from another?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

One of the MSNBC reporters went out to OH to talk to Trump voters, and they showed her interviews last night. It was really interesting stuff. Definitely regular, intelligent folks - I understood where they were coming from.

Trump spoke to their concerns. As pretty much everyone here knows, I think he's completely full of it - but he did talk about the things that affect them, specifically on the employment front.

Hillary really did blow it. Her campaign was completely unfocused, and really didn't speak to the concerns of people who either lost jobs, were in fear of losing them, or were watching their wages stagnate.

It's really a damned shame that the GOP didn't nominate a guy like Kasich. He spoke to those voters as well, and he would have been an infinitely better President than either Trump or Hillary (imo).

 

[sear]

#83

I'd have thought Kasich would have done better, perhaps go all the way.
Clearly I don't understand the Republican primary voter.

Candidly, I don't seem that close in touch with the entire nation's electorate either, though that may be due to the trend of poll results for months before the election up to the day before election day.

The public opinion poll on election day, the one that counts most, that turned things around quite a bit.

Fewer than 20 hours of the Obama administration left.

 

[Phantasmal]

One of the MSNBC reporters went out to OH to talk to Trump voters, and they showed her interviews last night. It was really interesting stuff. Definitely regular, intelligent folks - I understood where they were coming from.

Trump spoke to their concerns. As pretty much everyone here knows, I think he's completely full of it - but he did talk about the things that affect them, specifically on the employment front.

Hillary really did blow it. Her campaign was completely unfocused, and really didn't speak to the concerns of people who either lost jobs, were in fear of losing them, or were watching their wages stagnate.

It's really a damned shame that the GOP didn't nominate a guy like Kasich. He spoke to those voters as well, and he would have been an infinitely better President than either Trump or Hillary (imo).

The sad thing, she did address those things and you, like others and the media, didn't hear it. Everyone was focusing on the bogus emails.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/509477/?client=safari

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

The sad thing, she did address those things and you, like others and the media, didn't hear it. Everyone was focusing on the bogus emails.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/509477/?client=safari

I've made this argument before, too - because she did talk about it. But there wasn't an overarching theme to her campaign, and the last month in particular, she was running out the clock. I don't think she really engaged w/ the working class on a visible level, or spoke about those issues nearly as passionately as she could have. The things that got the biggest publicity (and I know, she doesn't have too much control over that) were comments like the deplorables, or putting coal miners out of work. There was a disconnect there that I think is undeniable.

And that last part was probably her biggest issue. She always struggled to connect. People said that behind the scenes she was much more warm, funny & personable; something happens to her when the lights are on.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

#83

I'd have thought Kasich would have done better, perhaps go all the way.
Clearly I don't understand the Republican primary voter.

Candidly, I don't seem that close in touch with the entire nation's electorate either, though that may be due to the trend of poll results for months before the election up to the day before election day.

The public opinion poll on election day, the one that counts most, that turned things around quite a bit.

Fewer than 20 hours of the Obama administration left.

Kasich was seen as "establishment," which is ridiculous. He was the rebel of the '90's, and has a long track record of getting positive things done.

His cabinet would be much more diverse and practical than Trump's. There wouldn't be as much Goldman Sachs or big money. His education pick would understand education.

 

[sear]

" The things that got the biggest publicity (and I know, she doesn't have too much control over that) " T1 #86

Trump sure did.
I read one estimate that reported Trump got over a $Billion $dollars worth of free publicity, merely by making outrageous statements, and later (after he'd reaped the free publicity benefit from them), walk them back.

- I'm gunna build a wall from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific and Mexico's gunna pay for it became:
I'll build part wall, but will consider a fence.

- I'm gunna deport all the illegal aliens became:
I'll deport the bad ones.

- I know more about getting rid of ISIL than the senior U.S. military command, believe me became:
Once I've taken office I'll ask for their proposals on how to get rid of ISIL.

I guess Hillary just couldn't sink that low.

 

[sear]

PS

T1 #87

Not reflecting the diversity of the population to be governed, there do seem to be a disproportionately high % of rich White men among Trump's selectees.

What a surprise!
The Republican party! Their highest ranking leader, showing distinct bias for $rich White men!

 

[midcan5]

Trump won for an assortment of reasons, if I were to simplify at a high level it would be misogyny and the republican war on government. Trump took advantage of a mood among white Americans. We shall see what he does to change that attack on gov as there is great irony in America's distrust of government, and their hope now that government under Trump is somehow a different thing. Kinda weird as trump is a liar and far from a billionaire - but he is not them not government.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2017/01/17/arthur-snell/how-to-read-the-trump-dossier

"Trump has flouted the norms of American elections and governance at every turn, including calling for the jailing of an opposing candidate, encouraging violence against protesters, endorsing the torture of prisoners, suggesting he might not respect the results of the election, falsely claiming that millions of illegal votes were cast, failing to resolve unprecedented conflicts of interest or to even disclose his tax returns, and attacking a federal judge based on his ethnicity (and that’s of course a highly incomplete list). I can’t directly assess the IC report, but it’s fair to say that the liberal democratic order is being disrupted both in the U.S. and around the world." Brendan Nyhan - https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/opinion/what-does-vladimir-putin-see-in-donald-trump.html

 

[sear]

I recall Trump's appeal for the Black vote: - what have you got to lose?! -

I don't recall reading the statistics on how the Black vote was proportioned among the candidates, either nationally, or by swing State.

 

[Phantasmal]

I've made this argument before, too - because she did talk about it. But there wasn't an overarching theme to her campaign, and the last month in particular, she was running out the clock. I don't think she really engaged w/ the working class on a visible level, or spoke about those issues nearly as passionately as she could have. The things that got the biggest publicity (and I know, she doesn't have too much control over that) were comments like the deplorables, or putting coal miners out of work. There was a disconnect there that I think is undeniable.

And that last part was probably her biggest issue. She always struggled to connect. People said that behind the scenes she was much more warm, funny & personable; something happens to her when the lights are on.

Well, we will have to agree to disagree because I think she addressed the issue on the ocassions I heard her speak. I thought she was far more detailed than Trump ever was.

 

[GazzaQueen]

Ended it? Really? Just a few months ago 4000 US troops on ground www.military.com/daily-news/2016/02...q-more-than-4000-exceeds-previous-claims.html

9/2016: Number of troops heading toward 6000. http://www.jauncole/2016/09/number-troops-heading.html

Another left wing blatant lie or another example of left wing enabling of the big lies? You choose.

One thing is certain. Its easy to tell when a lefty lies....they attempt to communicate, when they talk their mouths move proving they are still lying. When they post...the parrot the latest left wing lies. It never fails. With each post from any liberal...the lie can be documented.

I was being facetious. This is Obama's Iraq War. I also see where he bombed Libya yesterday.

 

[sear]

"I also see where he bombed Libya yesterday." GQ

It was reported on this evening, but I got distracted.
We used the B2 bomber, a stealth bomber. I gather it was launched from the U.S., Nebraska perhaps. I gather the raiding aircraft were in the air a total of 30 hours. The report indicated ~80 terrorist suspects were targeted; terrorists suspected of planning harm to Europe.

Why the U.S. has to do that, I don't know.

We'll see if President Trump makes good on his jive about getting the rest of NATO to pull their own weight.

 

[GazzaQueen]

"I also see where he bombed Libya yesterday." GQ

It was reported on this evening, but I got distracted.
We used the B2 bomber, a stealth bomber. I gather it was launched from the U.S., Nebraska perhaps. I gather the raiding aircraft were in the air a total of 30 hours. The report indicated ~80 terrorist suspects were targeted; terrorists suspected of planning harm to Europe.

Why the U.S. has to do that, I don't know.

We'll see if President Trump makes good on his jive about getting the rest of NATO to pull their own weight.

As a military strategist and foreign policymaker, he was massive fail. But he used the military his entire time in office. Drone strikes would do the trick. Until he put boots on the ground.

 

[OldMercsRule]

"It would tear this very successful Republic apart if the fruit loop masses in NYC, LA, Chicago and other major dim wit Democrat cesspools were allowed to totally direct the leadership of this Republic." OR #51

Your brief list includes key prosperity centers of the United States of America. So you don't want any of that pesky prosperity to leak out?

OR:
Perhaps you take me for a fool. That's fine. But the fact is I don't meet the minimum qualifications.
What you have posted may be an example of self-impressive expression.

But at its essence it is literally lower case anti-democratic. You are advocating for inequality under law.

"I guess ya wanna outlaw the Senate as well, eh?"

I understand the reference, and the distinction you're making between the differing ways we complement each house.

But no.
I don't deny the contradiction. I wouldn't lose much sleep if both houses of congress were populated by democratic process. But I'm willing to support the Constitution on it.

Why?

Consequence for one obvious reason:
electing our senators might be slightly less democratic, impure.

But it doesn't get us killed by the thousands the way the electoral college does.

The electoral college KILLS INNOCENT HUMANS including U.S. tax payers. I oppose the electoral college:
- for kind (anti-democratic)
- for degree (giving some voters more than three times the ballot power of otherwise ostensibly equal countrymen)
- for consequence.

The last time a Republican lost the vote but won the election he killed off thousands of us.
Let's see how many are killed off by the next one.

Your replies are very difficult to respond to.

Why can't you learn to properly quote posters you reply to?

Does yer brain werk?

#1 The Founders specifically set up a Republic that used specific democratic based strategies to allocate and limit power to avoid the rule by a mob you are apparently in favor of.

Both the Senate and the electoral college are very important components of those power allocation strategies.

Butt hurt moon bats, (who are always poor losers), want mob rule because the dimmest of bulbs live in America's major cities, and many of those states with the largest populations have been ruled by the dim wit Democrat party for decades.

Scrapping the electoral college would make this Republic look a lot like Detroit in a very short period of time.

#2 I am convinced that this structure, (electoral college, and 2 Senators per state), has led to the most impressive Republic in human history, that you as a butt hurt TARD infected moon bat wanna modify.

#3 The Constitution has a procedure for such modifications so get to it.

If ya think 3/4 of the 50 states would like the fruit loops in California, Illinois, and New York to run the Republic in the manner they have put their own states in financial distress, I have a bridge I would like to sell you.

 

[OldMercsRule]

sear was pointing to a certain obsolete provision, he/she did not recommend throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Typical illogical and disingenuous argument from you. The electoral college is only defensible on a contractual basis, i.e. that it was agreed to. It certainly is not a pillar buttressing the American experiment/ dream/ what have you. If you think so, prove it.

TARD infected moon bats want mob rule, (as they think their crooked Queen would have won).

The Founders set up a Republic with a power sharing structure that has resulted in the greatest country in human history, (that's sufficient proof fer me).

If this very successful Republic with the electoral college, federalism, and 2 Senators per state (regardless of population) doesn't satisfy you and yer fellow moon bat sear: go get 3/4 of the States to agree to be ruled by California, New York and Illinois.

Wanna buy a great bridge?

 

[OldMercsRule]

There is another process to accomplish the same thing, the National Popular Vote interstate compact.

I will settle for the system we now have. I guess that is why I'm a Conservative.

 

[sear]

"#1 The Founders specifically set up a Republic that used specific democratic based strategies to allocate and limit power to avoid the rule by a mob you are apparently in favor of." OR #96

OR #96's -mob rule- reference doesn't appear in my copy of The Federalist Papers. But it's a reference to how some Founders derisively referred to democracy.

BUT !!

The U.S. is not a democracy. We're a republic, which means we elect the representatives that govern on our behalf.
But I don't recall m/any Founders criticizing operating our republic by democratic process. It's the essence of equality under law: one voter, one vote.

Yet our electoral college gives some voters more than three times the vote power of some ostensibly equal citizens elsewhere in the nation.

To address your accusation directly:
- I support our republican form of government as much as you do.

- If by -mob rule- you mean lawlessness, then you are wrong. I do not endorse that.

- We can retain our republic and still select our civil servants within the bounds of equality under law. And in fact we do in most cases.

"Scrapping the electoral college would make this Republic look a lot like Detroit in a very short period of time."

The proof that you are wrong is centuries of history where it hasn't. In fact, the opposite is true.
We tend to prosper when the president elect is the electoral college AND a popular vote match, which I gather is most of the time.

Look at the smoldering rubble we end up with when the EC trump's the popular will of the People.

"Scrapping the electoral college would make this Republic look a lot like Detroit in a very short period of time."

This pic of Bush does bring to mind Cabrini Green, a now demolished Chicago nightmare.

 

[OldMercsRule]

"#1 The Founders specifically set up a Republic that used specific democratic based strategies to allocate and limit power to avoid the rule by a mob you are apparently in favor of." OR #96

OR #96's -mob rule- reference doesn't appear in my copy of The Federalist Papers. But it's a reference to how some Founders derisively referred to democracy.

BUT !!

The U.S. is not a democracy. We're a republic, which means we elect the representatives that govern on our behalf.
But I don't recall m/any Founders criticizing operating our republic by democratic process. It's the essence of equality under law: one voter, one vote.

Yet our electoral college gives some voters more than three times the vote power of some ostensibly equal citizens elsewhere in the nation.

To address your accusation directly:
- I support our republican form of government as much as you do.

- If by -mob rule- you mean lawlessness, then you are wrong. I do not endorse that.

- We can retain our republic and still select our civil servants within the bounds of equality under law. And in fact we do in most cases.

"Scrapping the electoral college would make this Republic look a lot like Detroit in a very short period of time."

The proof that you are wrong is centuries of history where it hasn't. In fact, the opposite is true.
We tend to prosper when the president elect is the electoral college AND a popular vote match, which I gather is most of the time.

Look at the smoldering rubble we end up with when the EC trump's the popular will of the People.

"Scrapping the electoral college would make this Republic look a lot like Detroit in a very short period of time."

This pic of Bush does bring to mind Cabrini Green, a now demolished Chicago nightmare.

There is no requirement under the Constitution of all votes having equal "vote power", (that is jus' something a TARD infected sore loser moon bat like you made up).

In fact: the Senate is intentionally designed to be way out of whack in yer so called "vote power" balance where states like Alaska or Wyoming have two Senate seats as does California.

That brilliant feature to share and balance power is part of the spectacular success this great Republic has enjoyed for over two centuries.

The electoral college is another brilliant feature that gives this country remarkable stability.

The worst run entities in this Republic are the dim wit Democrat corntrolled major cities, and the states that are dominated by said cesspools.

Texas is a notable exception because Republicans largely corntrol that state.

If 3/4 of the states agree with an upside down moon bat like you, they can cede their power to California, New York and Illinois.

I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

This great Country is a REPUBLIC not a pure Democracy, and the Republic actually works remarkably well.

carry on now... burp...