Donald Trump

[MonDie]

I'm actually wondering how he won. Huffingtonpost reported Clinton having a five percent lead or more all the way to election day. However she only won the popular vote by 0.15%, and she lost by be 74 delegates of the electoral college. 74 delegates is about 7 states, dividing by average delegates per state.

 

There are apparently a lot of tricks that politicians can play to bias the outcome. I found the quoted text particularly interesting because it's probably cities where long lines are a bigger problem, and cities are overwhelmingly liberal / Democrat.

 

"Voters in key states endured long lines, equipment failures"

apologies if the linked page doesn't work, but it I recommend it for the content.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/08/voting-polls-election-day/93201770/

 

The Trump campaign went to court in Nevada on Tuesday, complaining that the Clark County Registrar kept an early voting site at a Latino market open two hours past closing time last Friday night. State law allows voters in line when polls close to cast ballots; Trump's lawsuit claims additional voters were allowed to join the line. The complaint, which could ultimately invalidate the votes in question, was swiftly denied.

 

In 2013 the Supreme Court struck down a major part of the Voting Rights Act, which required specified states, which had a history of disenfranchising black voters, to have changes to their voting system reviewed by the federal government first. Part of the justification was record voter turnout for Africans-americans in recent elections (for president Obama). Ethnic minorities tend to vote Democrat.

 

I don't know whether the system for counting votes is trustworthy, but I would feel the more comfortable if the polling place would give me a unique identifier that would allow me to look up my vote online alongside everyone else's.

Edited November 10, 2016 by MonDie

[EdEarl]

I'm actually wondering how he won. Huffingtonpost reported Clinton having a five percent lead or more all the way to election day. However she only won the popular vote by 0.15%, and she lost by be 74 delegates of the electoral college. 74 delegates is about 7 states, dividing by average delegates per state.

 

There are apparently a lot of tricks that politicians can play to bias the outcome. I found the quoted text particularly interesting because it's probably cities where long lines are a bigger problem, and cities are overwhelmingly liberal / Democrat.

 

"Voters in key states endured long lines, equipment failures"

apologies if the linked page doesn't work, but it I recommend it for the content.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/11/08/voting-polls-election-day/93201770/

 

In 2013 the Supreme Court struck down a major part of the Voting Rights Act, which required specified states, which had a history of disenfranchising black voters, to have changes to their voting system reviewed by the federal government first. Part of the justification was record voter turnout for Africans-americans in recent elections (for president Obama). Ethnic minorities tend to vote Democrat.

 

I don't know whether the system for counting votes is trustworthy, but I would feel the more comfortable if the polling place would give me a unique identifier that would allow me to look up my vote online alongside everyone else's.

I'd be surprised if anything substantial is ever found, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[iNow]

I'm actually wondering how he won.

Here's a pretty useful set of charts answering exactly that question: http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/daily-chart-5

 

The breakdown at the bottom of that page is the one that I found most insightful.

[Delta1212]

Keep in mind that while a couple of the big states were covered by the Voting Rights Act, most of the critical states that Trump won were never restricted by the act in the first place, so the impact it could have had is somewhat limited and it certainly doesn't explain him outperforming across the board.

[Phi for All]

The Russians are admitting they were in communication with the Trump camp during the election, but the Trump camp denies that.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/interfax-reports-russia-had-contact-with-trump-team-during-campaign-1478791392

 

I think we're getting more details on how secretive and opaque this administration will be.

[Delta1212]

The Russians are admitting they were in communication with the Trump camp during the election, but the Trump camp denies that.

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/interfax-reports-russia-had-contact-with-trump-team-during-campaign-1478791392

 

I think we're getting more details on how secretive and opaque this administration will be.

The fun part is that this is pretty much the best thing both of them could say no matter what the truth is.

 

If Russia pushed Trump as a destabilizing force in the election, then coming out and saying that is probably the best way to further destabilize our democracy. And if they didn't, then it still has the same destabilizing effect and so of course it's a good move.

 

And the Trump camp, of course, is going to deny it either way.

 

I still honestly don't know whether Trump is actually playing for Putin or just being played by him. It's not really comforting either way, though.

 

I expect he's more useful fool than Manchurian Candidate, but there's no really good way to tell at this point.

[Phi for All]

I still honestly don't know whether Trump is actually playing for Putin or just being played by him. It's not really comforting either way, though.

 

Given how long Howard Stern played him for a fool without him catching on, I'd say he's being played. Putin will be elected for life during Trump's administration, imo.

[Raider5678]

 

Given how long Howard Stern played him for a fool without him catching on, I'd say he's being played. Putin will be elected for life during Trump's administration, imo.

I'm wondering what your response would be if after Donald Trumps 4 years in office, crime was low, unemployment was low, national dept was gone, there were no new wars, the war in the east was over with an American victory, and Trump decided to run for Re-election. For people who have no morals about issues concerning Abortion, homosexuality, religion, and race, I'm sure he would be elected again. Yet, I'm also sure you would still be 100% anti trump and give credit to democrats, while blaming Republicans for all the moral issues that I listed.

[Delta1212]

I'm wondering what your response would be if after Donald Trumps 4 years in office, crime was low, unemployment was low, national dept was gone, there were no new wars, the war in the east was over with an American victory, and Trump decided to run for Re-election. For people who have no morals about issues concerning Abortion, homosexuality, religion, and race, I'm sure he would be elected again. Yet, I'm also sure you would still be 100% anti trump and give credit to democrats, while blaming Republicans for all the moral issues that I listed.

If things are just peachy in 4 years I will be thrilled. I'm not upset because the government is Republican. I'm upset because the specific things they have proposed doing terrify me. Not just on moral issues, but diplomatic, economic and environmental. I'm anticipating negative consequences pretty much across the board.

 

If everything goes smoothly, I'll be ecstatic and relieved because, unlike the Republicans we've had in government over the last eight years who have repeatedly flipped on their own legislation when it was backed by Democrats, sabotaged policies that came out of conservative groups or bipartisan attempts at cooperation between individual Democrats and Republicans or following the Hastert rule and zealously trying to avoid passing anything in the House that couldn't be passed exclusively with Republican votes and no input from Democrats all to make sure that Democrats and especially Obama have no successes they can point to as their openly stated objective and damn the consequences for the country at large, I don't actually give a shit who it is that implements good policy as long as someone is doing it.

 

I know a lot of Republicans who are very strong party loyalists. And the way Republicans tend to vote is pretty consistent for their party. They turn out to elect members of their party regardless of their enthusiasm for the specific candidates. It's why they tend to do so well in the "less exciting" midterm elections. They show up to support the party.

 

And the thing I think a lot of those people and people who are surrounded by mostly Republican areas don't get is that Democrats don't have an equivalent number of people who are equivalently dedicated to their team. The majority of Democratic voters don't vote for the party so much as they vote for candidates and issues that they feel are important to them. There is much less team loyalty baked in. They might show up and vote straight ticket if there is something they like that gets them to the polls, but you can't count on them to hold their nose and be there if there is nothing they like on the ticket that election season. It's why Democrats turn out in lower numbers in midterm elections. The Republican core shows up to support the party, but the Democratic core is much smaller and since the candidates are much less visible there are fewer people from the Democratic base who are excited about voting for them and showing up to do so.

 

You can also see it Presidential approval ratings. Recent Democratic Presidents tend to have much lower ceilings on their approval ratings, while Bush had much more volatile approval ratings. There is a core of Republicans who will not give Obama their approval because he is on the wrong team while Democrats were much more willing to throw their support behind Bush following 9/11.

 

It's not that every member of each party is like this, so much as it is that the relative number of each of this type of person is different across the parties. Democrats have traditionally been much more willing to work with Republicans to acheive the things that they believe in than Republicans have been to work with Democrats even to acheive Republicans' own goals. The Dems just don't care as much who it is that supports something as long as someone is supporting it if they think it's good policy.

 

I just, again, don't think the things that are currently being proposed are good policy and expect to see negative results following them. But you have no idea how relieved I would be to be proven wrong and have Donald Trump be the greatest president in American history. I'm perfectly capable of laughing at myself if that proves to be the case.

 

 

 

I just don't anticipate being in a laughing mood for a very long time.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Delta1212

[Ophiolite]

I just don't anticipate being in a laughing mood for a very long time.

I was wrong about Trump being nominated as the Republican candidate and I was wrong about him being elected President. They say things happen in threes. I hope I am wrong about him being a disaster for the US and for the world.

 

(The thing that really sticks in my throat is that genetically I am as Scottish as he is. Believe that has caused a lot of introspection. Fortunately my father wasn't a multimillionaire.)

[Ten oz]

If things are just peachy in 4 years I will be thrilled. I'm not upset because the government is Republican. I'm upset because the specific things they have proposed doing terrify me.

Trump's "Contract with America", his first 100 day plan, alone is terrifying and makes many irreversible changes. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contract/

 

For starters he is calling for a Consitutional Admendment for term limits in Congress, no more than 12yrs. Considering that the overwhelming majority of seats are in gerrymandered districts and don't have competitive elections this would only make it even more of a good ole boy system where the Executive branch could anoint a third of the seat every few years.

 

Other terrible things include labeling China a currency manipulator, full repeal of the ACA, immediate deportation of 2 million immigrants currently under deferred action, a ban of immigrants from country with terrorism (which basically could be any and all country Trump chooses), a immediate suppression all money to the UN for climate change, and etc, etc, etc.

[EdEarl]

I'm wondering what your response would be if after Donald Trumps 4 years in office, crime was low, unemployment was low, national dept was gone, there were no new wars, the war in the east was over with an American victory, and Trump decided to run for Re-election. For people who have no morals about issues concerning Abortion, homosexuality, religion, and race, I'm sure he would be elected again. Yet, I'm also sure you would still be 100% anti trump and give credit to democrats, while blaming Republicans for all the moral issues that I listed.

I agree with what Delta said in the previous post. In addition, the Republican position on climate change is, IMO, criminal because people are dieing and more will die as climate change gets worse. IMO, those who prevent measures to abate climate change should be tried for crimes against humanity.

 

There is a real chance that humanity will not survive climate change, and most Republicans are increasing that chance. Your rosy picture of 4 years of Trump is pure fantasy.

Edited November 11, 2016 by EdEarl

[StringJunky]

Look at it positively: if Trump screws it up big time in the next four years the democrats will have a good long stretch next time around.

[Delta1212]

Look at it positively: if Trump screws it up big time in the next four years the democrats will have a good long stretch next time around.

That's what we all said at the end of W's presidency and look how that has turned out.

[StringJunky]

That's what we all said at the end of W's presidency and look how that has turned out.

Just trying to...

 

[Raider5678]

I agree with what Delta said in the previous post. In addition, the Republican position on climate change is, IMO, criminal because people are dieing and more will die as climate change gets worse. IMO, those who prevent measures to abate climate change should be tried for crimes against humanity.

 

There is a real chance that humanity will not survive climate change, and most Republicans are increasing that chance. Your rosy picture of 4 years of Trump is pure fantasy.

My "rosy" picture is a hope. And within 1 year we will know more about how Trump's plan is working then anyone here does now. So I'll tell you what. In one year I'll come back to address this post and we'll see if its working or not.

[Ten oz]

I was wrong about Trump being nominated as the Republican candidate and I was wrong about him being elected President. They say things happen in threes. I hope I am wrong about him being a disaster for the US and for the world.

 

(The thing that really sticks in my throat is that genetically I am as Scottish as he is. Believe that has caused a lot of introspection. Fortunately my father wasn't a multimillionaire.)

Trump received 2 million less votes than Mitt Romeny in 2012. We were all wrong however we all had had no visibility of the full picture. We had no insight, still don't, on the full impact voter supression had. NAACP brought lawsuits in 5 states. Many rule were changed from 2012 following the voting rights act being strop in 2013. http://www.salon.com/2016/10/31/federal-lawsuits-filed-in-5-states-after-african-american-voters-purged-from-registration-rolls-targeted-for-intimidation-by-the-trump-campaign/

 

We also had no visibility on the extent of cyber attacks the Clinton campaign would be besieged by. It is unprecedented. We have never had a presidential campaign attacked by a forgien entity before. Stunningly no one cares. The media treated Russian hacked material like any other normally sourced material. The full extent of the cyber attacks may still be unkown. For all we know they also manipulated some of the polling data which is why it was so unreliable and all over the scale this year. We just don't know.

[Raider5678]

Trump's "Contract with America", his first 100 day plan, alone is terrifying and makes many irreversible changes. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/contract/

 

For starters he is calling for a Consitutional Admendment for term limits in Congress, no more than 12yrs. Considering that the overwhelming majority of seats are in gerrymandered districts and don't have competitive elections this would only make it even more of a good ole boy system where the Executive branch could anoint a third of the seat every few years.

 

Other terrible things include labeling China a currency manipulator, full repeal of the ACA, immediate deportation of 2 million immigrants currently under deferred action, a ban of immigrants from country with terrorism (which basically could be any and all country Trump chooses), a immediate suppression all money to the UN for climate change, and etc, etc, etc.

At this point, we should probably start trying to invent something to clean the atmosphere because with all republican branches we aren't going to get anything done in preventing it.

Trump received 2 million less votes than Mitt Romeny in 2012. We were all wrong however we all had had no visibility of the full picture. We had no insight, still don't, on the full impact voter supression had. NAACP brought lawsuits in 5 states. Many rule were changed from 2012 following the voting rights act being strop in 2013. http://www.salon.com/2016/10/31/federal-lawsuits-filed-in-5-states-after-african-american-voters-purged-from-registration-rolls-targeted-for-intimidation-by-the-trump-campaign/

 

We also had no visibility on the extent of cyber attacks the Clinton campaign would be besieged by. It is unprecedented. We have never had a presidential campaign attacked by a forgien entity before. Stunningly no one cares. The media treated Russian hacked material like any other normally sourced material. The full extent of the cyber attacks may still be unkown. For all we know they also manipulated some of the polling data which is why it was so unreliable and all over the scale this year. We just don't know.

You see, no matter who wins the other side ALWAYS! Every. Single. Time. WILL claim it was rigged. This is why I often have a hard time believing anything concerning "foul" play. Mostly because there is always foul play.

[Ten oz]

At this point, we should probably start trying to invent something to clean the atmosphere because with all republican branches we aren't going to get anything done in preventing it.

You see, no matter who wins the other side ALWAYS! Every. Single. Time. WILL claim it was rigged. This is why I often have a hard time believing anything concerning "foul" play. Mostly because there is always foul play.

DHS Press Office

Contact: 202-282-8010 The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process.

https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national

 

This has NEVER happened before. Claiming people "always" claim whatever is just an anecdotal excuse to dismiss what are very real and very alarming events which have transpired. It is also worth noting that for the 2nd time in as many Republican presidential victories they won despite losing the popular. Something that prior to Bush in 2000 had happened since 1888.

[EdEarl]

My "rosy" picture is a hope. And within 1 year we will know more about how Trump's plan is working then anyone here does now. So I'll tell you what. In one year I'll come back to address this post and we'll see if its working or not.

I've seen the country go down hill since the 70's, as Republican policies have been enacted. If you haven't seen the trend, one more year will make no difference.

[DrP]

For me - it isn't about the candidates, it is about the parties and their policies. I am uncertain why so many people voted against the current government, which to me and out sider, looked to be doing a fine job (all terms of office come with pro's and cons).

[Raider5678]

For me - it isn't about the candidates, it is about the parties and their policies. I am uncertain why so many people voted against the current government, which to me and out sider, looked to be doing a fine job (all terms of office come with pro's and cons).

From inside the country, people are split 50-50 to whats considered doing good and whats doing bad.

[EdEarl]

From inside the country, people are split 50-50 to whats considered doing good and whats doing bad.

I think the split is more about what policies will do good rather than what is good. Although, there are a few issues (e.g., abortion) where people disagree on what is good. However, most people want the economy to be strong, want less crime, and want low prices.

[Raider5678]

I think the split is more about what policies will do good rather than what is good. Although, there are a few issues (e.g., abortion) where people disagree on what is good. However, most people want the economy to be strong, want less crime, and want low prices

If it were that easy, I should run for president. Sadly the media blows things out of proportion and makes it seem like everyone cares about one issue that nobody cares about. I remember the news doing a big thing about a protest in my state's capital. Made it seem like it was a big giant thing, but then you see the video your like: What the heck, there's literally less then 10 people standing in the middle of the road, that's just a public disturbance, not a "massive" protest.

[StringJunky]

...., and want low prices.

AliExpress.