Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi
...and they voted for Trump too.
But the big problem...Clinton had far far more money, and a ground game that could have been everywhere...and still couldn't do any better than she did. Why? Because as a candidate she just plain sucked. She more or less leveled out against the likes of Trump. How the fuck could she not win against every bit of vitriolic shit he was spewing that should have easily tanked him in the primaries...and the election itself? People want to say that Trump conned them...but those same people need to scrutinize Clinton first.
The DNC's and Hillary's arrogance was a big factor too. Several weeks before the election before Comey the narrative was that the election was over. Clinton had cut back on her travel and appearances dramatically. Hillary really also did herself a disservice for largely not doing any news conferences and defending herself. Arrogance was her Achilles heal.
Complacency and arrogance...got ya...I mean that last week she seemed to be planning her first hundred days in office and responded as if she were already president.
Hmm, no. That's not true. You can do a subgroup analysis and say the majority of votes are liberal and the majority of liberals are located in X,Y,Z cities, but that's most certainly not the principal argument from a number of votes. I.e.: a number of votes is powered to suggest the number of people who voted for a candidate. Any further inferences you derive are subgroups and you may or may not have an adequate sample size for your inference to be accurate.
I.e.: Perhaps the majority of people in NYC did not vote which would invalidate your statement. And to know that you would need more data.
So no, more people voting for Hillary doesn't mean that people who live in concentrated areas are liberal; it simply means more people voted for Hillary. Anything further might be true, but is an inference you are making based on a subgroup which requires more data to determine. At least if you have any semblance of logical thought or care for scientific method or truth
Quite frankly I don't think Trump will ever actually do anything besides try and increase his net worth. Anything that actually happens on a policy level will be the result of the people he has surrounded himself with making those suggestions and decisions (opinion, mine).
Unfortunately, so far the majority of people he has picked are vomit in a bucket. Hopefully he'll pick Romney for SS so the vomit doesn't overflow this early.
Last edited by drakensoul; 2016-11-26 at 05:14 PM.
Both sides seem unable to meet others in the middle. Even your post sounds more like 'let's meet in the middle. oh by the way, the place where I am? That's the middle now'. I have yet to see a discussion on this board where either side truly tried to meet others halfway and it seems that this is also true for a lot of real life America.
Last edited by Kiri; 2016-11-26 at 05:21 PM.
Politics seems to be a surprisingly id-driven, school yard trash-talk sector. Unlike the rest of your life where you try to see the other side and compromise to create mutual happiness and respect, the whole goal here seems to be: I won!! You lost! Hah!! WE are kings of the hill! We win! We win!"
Seems unfortunate that this is how government works.
- - - Updated - - -
He's not acting as if Clinton won. He's saying Clinton won the popular vote (64.2 to 62.2 million) which isn't insanity, it's a fact.
After a campaign of:
Racism
Sexism
Authoritarianism
Lies
Intimidation
Intolerance
Hatred
and so much more
There is really no meeting halfway. Voting for Trump or not was a moral test. Support for Trump now is also a moral test. To support Trump at any point is to support a man who has acted in a way, and espoused things that are profoundly un-American.
That is not say that you or I or anyone else can not agree, even praise some things Trump does. Life is not so simple. But agreement and assent/support are two very different things. The former is a dovetail of interests, and even among enemies interests periodically dovetail. The latter implies a degree of ownership.
Donald Trump won the Presidency in the most despicable, dishonorable and disgraceful manner possible. He still won. He will be THE President but never, ever MY President. And I will never meet his supporters in the middle because even when I agree with them on specific policies on the basis of the facts, I believe that they were and remain MORALLY in the wrong for supporting such a disgraceful human being.
Think about it. The office of Washington and Jefferson. Of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman Eisenhower, , JFK, Lyndon Johnson, Reagan...and now Trump? That is the America we live in now. The office of leader of the free world has been truly defiled... not on the basis of policy, but of fundamental character. We have made truly, the most rancid among us President.
Exactly how many times do I have to type "Donald Trump won"? Do I need to go to the store and get some crayons for draw a picture for you? I mean I know you're rather simple, but come on already... I think I'm averaging once per post.
But the fact remains, Hillary Clinton appealed to more voters, period. Just not the ones in the right places. That's how we do things. he still won. The two facts are mutually exclusive. In the United States of America, the person with the most popular votes does not win. But by definition, the personw ith the most popular votes is the most popularly supported of the candidates.
Well I gave the recount effort $100. But I also made clear emphatically why. I doubt it'll find anything at all, much less turn the results the other way. And I'm fully aware that there is a very high liklihood Jill Stein will use hat $100 to benefit her own crap political agenda.
But at the same time, that $100 was $100 of my hard earned money I'm putting to make sure that Russia did not interfere. That is the least bit I feel how important we must make a stand against Russia's information warfare. Beyond the election, beyond Trump or Hillary, Russia _must_ pay a price for what they did.
That's $100 well spent, I feel, at illustrating how much we need to address their actions. And the effort and it's surprise fundraising success already got a response from the White House that directly addressed my concern (Russia). Hopefully there will be more. if not, I got what most of what I paid for.