nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

El Presidente Trump

Kermit.de.frog

It's happened folks. You are only waking up but it has happened. A genuine unstable idiot has become president of the US.

I will be asleep as you wake. But I will wake too and I will also think of the consequences and wonder is it a dream:eek:

It's not a dream.

It's real.

F**k

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Wanderer78

Berserker wrote: »

Have you ever lived in the USA? I'm guessing that you haven't. You are trying to apply a brand of socialism to the USA and that is not going to fly. Many middle and upper class Americans balk at the thought of having to pay for healthcare for someone who doesn't or won't work.

no i havent but i listen to a lot of american alternative media and it sounds like many americans have had enough of their health care system. i suspect most americans at this stage only have access to half arsed health care if even. hard to know if this will ever change but i do feel theres a fairly large movement happening now with the working classes. i also think this election has shown that. hopefully something gives soon or we could be looking at far more serious problems not just in america but globally.

SeanW

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

A lot of Trump Supporters are idiots.

Nothing wrong with calling idiots idiots.

And a lot of Hillary supporters are evil. The father of the Orlando massacre shooter? He was "with her". Wall Street Special interests? They were "with her" as were some Middle Eastern governments. Extremist feminists whose main reason to exist seems to be about "killing" white men. Special snowflakes in campuses who demand "Trigger warnings" and punishment for "Micro-aggressions". People who spread myths like "patriarchy" "white/male privilege" "rape culture" "wage gap" and "institutional racism" to promote an agenda of sexist and racial hatred. Black Lives Matter anarchist lunatics like this lady:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzA4dCT4X0I

All were "with her".

anna080 wrote: »

How did the opinion polls get it so wrong, again? Some are saying that a lot of those who publically endorsed Hillary were actually secret Trump voters.

The "Bradley effect" on private polling has been a thing since '82. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_effect
Obviously it applies to other perceived needs to virtue-signal.

wonderfullife wrote: »

That's without even mentioning climate change. Trump is on record as saying "climate change is a hoax".

Well, that's tremendous - we'll continue to have the seas warming up, glaciers melting etc. He'll do more damage in 4 years than the previous 40 years of American policy combined.

The environmental-left could have prevented this.

The environmental-Left have spent the last 40 years telling humanity that we had a binary choice between a good quality of life and "living ecologically" to save the planet. This is a false dichotomy because it is possible to do both - check out Patrick Moore's videos on Praeger University for more details.

The biggie here is energy/electricity policy. The evironmental left has spent the last 40 years pushing insanse nonsense like windmill subsidies. These policies have had only negative effects:

Driving up electricity bills.
Spoiling the landscape more than a million SUV laden highways and one-off houses ever could.
Killing endangered eagles and bats (already gravely threatened by White Nose Syndrome) on an industrial scale.
Producing f*** all electricity and then only at random with no correlation to demand.

Having spent the last 40 years telling us that we had only the choice of accepting the above or killing the planet, they're wrong, but it was only a matter of time before someone - fed up of spiralling energy costs and plummeting quality of life - chose the latter.

Much of the warming today attributed to Anthrophogenic Climate Change could have been avoided if humanity had been using nuclear power on a much greater scale. France, Sweden and Switzerland all have virtually CO2 free grids because they mix nuclear power with hydroelectricity, and lots of both (hydro is useful for flexibility, and to provide peak power). Many countries could have done something similar but most did not for one reason - leftists. Our failures to do so to date have been 100% the fault of the environmental left who have lied about nuclear continuously for the entirity of their miserable existence, and untold millions maybe billions of tons of CO2 are needlessly in the atmosphere today because of this. The eco-leftists were too busy painting their false dichotomy which they may have now made true. Take a bow mainstream environmentalists, if President Trump and a Republican Congress paves the way for a whole load of filthy coal fired power plants, you paved the way for them to do that. Needlessly.

nomdeboardie

I tried and failed to levitate periodically since the result – unfortunately, it’s looking increacingly unlikely that this is a dream :eek::(

Wanderer78

Depp wrote: »

actually by the time the dem party nomination had been decided the closing date for independent entries had closed...was also going to be the case were ted cruz to win the gop nomination which thankfully didnt come to pass! ted cruz with a full republican majority in both houses, now there is a dangerous prospect!

this prospect has been worrying me the most all day, the republican party scares the ****e out of me. they are a party full of extremists and not so intelligent folks.

Varik

People saying Sanders would have beaten him don't understand how deeply Americans reject socialism. Gap would have been wider if he had run.

HellSquirrel

It's funny, really.

All this giving out about whiny libtards and all that. One candidate said he wouldn't accept the results unless he won, threatened the fundamental points of American democracy (peaceful transition of power), indicated that gun owners should "do something" about Supreme Court Justices nominated by his opponent, whined when Comey wasn't able to pin anything on Clinton the second time around (not least since none of the emails that set off that announcement were either from or to her), complained that the moderators were too hard on him and not hard enough on the Democrats (although he wasn't alone there, a few of the Republican candidates did - and yes, I saw both and no, they did not "go easy" on the democrats - even if Clinton did have a heads up on one of the questions!) His supporters tweeted and talked about armed revolt if their candidate didn't win. Militia "units" were training for a potential revolt. He's threatened to imprison his political opponent. This man actually threatened and damaged the underpinnings of democracy in his own country rather than face any prospect of losing.

And yet it's the left-wingers that are whiny and in need of "safe spaces"? Sounds to me like there are quite a number of the alt-right that want safe spaces, but don't want that pointed out. That want to be allowed to say what they like, but get upset when people disagree with them.

And you know what? That's fine. But the loudness of the hypocrisy, and the method of argument that, when confronted with a direct, sourced counterpoint, will ignore it and scream their buzzwords louder, is quite irritating.

It's probably the point of it, mind you. It is just about impossible to argue with a brick wall, especially a shouting one!

The support groundswell had reason behind their anger. They have been left behind. The system is rigged against them. I'm not being sarcastic; it is. It used to be that as a straight, white male, all options were open. Sure, many of them weren't good options, but the chance to climb was there. Middle America has suffered from the advancement of technology and a tech-based economy rather than an industry-based one. And, capitalism being what it is, once a person or a group starts losing out, it's much harder to regather and steady things than it is for those ascending to keep ascending.

It does stick in my craw that Trump won. Of course it does. He's used these people with his lies and his nastiness pretending to be "straight talk" (doesn't straight talk require, y'know, actual truth in it somewhere?), while gloating about how he loves the uneducated, announced a tax plan that will disproportionately benefit those in a position like his (dropping the top tax band rate from just under 40% to 33%) and disproportionately damage those in the lowest income brackets (he wants three tax bands, rather than the current seven. Needless to say, this will reduce the leeway given to those that make the least amount of money.) Hell, there was too much to keep on top of in terms of fact-checking, but god knows I fact-checked enough of it to know damn well just how many lies there were, and no matter how much people try to rewrite history, the vast majority of it came from Trump himself and his campaign. His own VP couldn't stand behind some of it.

And yet, all that aside, I can understand the Trump base in the US for all it grates on me to see such a blatant con happen on a world stage. It's much stranger to see it here though. Ireland benefits quite a lot from American companies within Ireland in terms of jobs. Trump's policy is to make it as difficult as possible for them to trade with the United States unless they move back. Sure, that's fair enough from an American point of view, but it's most peculiar to see Irish people lauding it.

namloc1980

Trump got less votes than McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012. Just goes to show what an awful candidate Clinton was to lose to Trump. So unlikeable.

namloc1980

Varik wrote: »

People saying Sanders would have beaten him don't understand how deeply Americans reject socialism. Gap would have been wider if he had run.

That's because they don't understand what it is. Americans automatically see it as Communism = Soviet Union etc.

mzungu

Widdershins wrote: »

Hitler is the usual choice. It's an insult to everyone who lived through a dictatorship though. I mean, really.
People, keep the criticism proportional instead of going for shock value.

Exactly. Trump will be kept in check. The way some folks are going on about it like it is some kind of armageddon reminds me of the teen histrionics when Take That split up.

nice_guy80

Sanders would have offered a proper alternative at least

Hillary is disliked by too many people, including democrats who didn't bother to vote

Widdershins

mzungu wrote: »

Exactly. Trump will be kept in check. The way some folks are going on about it like it is some kind of armageddon reminds me of the teen histrionics when Take That split up.

I'm watching what he does instead of picking over every word he has said.

retro:electro

I think a lot of American's will be satisfied enough with a metaphorical wall that represents boundaries and restraint.

Depp

HellSquirrel wrote: »

It's funny, really.

All this giving out about whiny libtards and all that. One candidate said he wouldn't accept the results unless he won, threatened the fundamental points of American democracy (peaceful transition of power), indicated that gun owners should "do something" about Supreme Court Justices nominated by his opponent, whined when Comey wasn't able to pin anything on Clinton the second time around (not least since none of the emails that set off that announcement were either from or to her), complained that the moderators were too hard on him and not hard enough on the Democrats (although he wasn't alone there, a few of the Republican candidates did - and yes, I saw both and no, they did not "go easy" on the democrats - even if Clinton did have a heads up on one of the questions!) His supporters tweeted and talked about armed revolt if their candidate didn't win. Militia "units" were training for a potential revolt. He's threatened to imprison his political opponent. This man actually threatened and damaged the underpinnings of democracy in his own country rather than face any prospect of losing.

thats a very big claim to make anything to back it up?

also think its funny how you glossed over that when clinton was asked the exact same question on conceding she completely dodged the question?

Flint Fredstone

"Stop the world, I want to get off"
"Someone press the reset button on planet earth"

Cringe. Catch a hold of yourselves.

Depp

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

"Stop the world, I want to get off"
"Someone press the reset button on planet earth"

Cringe. Catch a hold of yourselves.

Junkyard Tom

Varik wrote: »

People saying Sanders would have beaten him don't understand how deeply Americans reject socialism. Gap would have been wider if he had run.

We don't know if he'd have beaten him or if the gap would have been wider. An awful lot of people who would have voted for Sanders wouldn't vote for Hillary. Also, Sanders is a Social Democrat rather than a socialist in the 'nationalise-the-railways' sense.

learn_more

nice_guy80 wrote: »

Sanders would have offered a proper alternative at least

Hillary is disliked by too many people, including democrats who didn't bother to vote

This election was wrapped up when Trump won the nomination. Sadly to say. I'm not sure if Bernie would have done any better.

I never got the hate for Hillary. I've always quite liked her but of course I know her problems were more than likeability.

Her concession speech was probably the best speech I ever saw her make. It's a pity she's wasn't equipped with talent for speeches and philosophical one liners, where she had to borrow of Michele Obama.

I think she's as genuine a politician as any politician and a lot better than most.

Really sour day for me today. I usually enjoy big election nights but last night was just a nighmare. I can't stomach the idea of seeing Trump as president for the next 4 years , no mind 8.

retro:electro

I'm not a fan of Hillary (or Trump) but I actually felt sorry for the old bint giving her speech. You could tell she hated every minute of having to say let's give Trump a chance.

HellSquirrel

Depp wrote: »

thats a very big claim to make anything to back it up?

also think its funny how you glossed over that when clinton was asked the exact same question on conceding she completely dodged the question?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-hillary-clinton-victory-donald-trump-armed-group-militia-3-per-cent-security-force-a7393556.html

http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/04/the-pro-trump-training-camp-where-militants-are-ready-to-fight-and-kill-6235069/

http://www.kansas.com/news/state/article108279072.html (so-so, while it probably didn't -help-, these guys may also just have been asshats)

As for the other, you'd need to give me a source on that. In the infamous occasion where Trump was asked, his response was so off the wall that the next statement was "That's horrifying". The question was not asked of her. And, as you saw earlier today, she conceded by phone and gave her speech with dignity.

Edit: Goddamn, the fecking thing is over and I'm still fact-checking >.>

midlandsmissus

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

We don't know if he'd have beaten him or if the gap would have been wider. An awful lot of people who would have voted for Sanders wouldn't vote for Hillary. Also, Sanders is a Social Democrat rather than a socialist in the 'nationalise-the-railways' sense.

Hilary Clinton- the fifth person to win the popular vote but lose the Electoral vote, the last being Al Gore who won the popular vote , but lost the Electoral vote to George Bush.

I've been reading up about the Electoral vote. It is interesting. It was introduced to even out the field.

Hilary got more votes overall but she got them in a smaller amount of states with large populations e.g. California and New York.

More states voted for Trump.

I suppose this system was introduced because the larger populated states have always been generally pro one party, is that correct?

But more individuals voted for Hilary. What do people think of the system?

KingBrian2

Great day to be a member of the peoples Republic everywhere.

Junkyard Tom

anna080 wrote: »

I'm not a fan of Hillary (or Trump) but I actually felt sorry for the old bint giving her speech. You could tell she hated every minute of having to say let's give Trump a chance.

I'd say she hated it not because of the effect it might have on Americans but because she's lost to a person thought to be unelectable. Turns out Hillary was even less electable, a bitter pill to swallow.

buried

Flint Fredstone wrote: »

"Stop the world, I want to get off"
"Someone press the reset button on planet earth"

Cringe. Catch a hold of yourselves.

This is exactly what the early morning radio shows sounded like on RTE 1 this morning, except with Irish accents

HellSquirrel

midlandsmissus wrote: »

But more individuals voted for Hilary. What do people think of the system?

Must be incredibly galling for anyone in that position, but I see the reasoning behind it. If it was just a direct popular vote, the big sparsely populated states would barely get a look-in.

Although I don't quite get why some states have proportional electoral college seats (i.e. Trump got one in Maine, reflecting that the entire population didn't vote for Clinton, even if Maine went blue) and others are just Red or Blue wholesale. Someone did point out earlier that no-one's going to split their power like that easily and that's true enough, but...

Depp

HellSquirrel wrote: »

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/us-election-hillary-clinton-victory-donald-trump-armed-group-militia-3-per-cent-security-force-a7393556.html

http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/04/the-pro-trump-training-camp-where-militants-are-ready-to-fight-and-kill-6235069/

http://www.kansas.com/news/state/article108279072.html (so-so, while it probably didn't -help-, these guys may also just have been asshats)

As for the other, you'd need to give me a source on that. In the infamous occasion where Trump was asked, his response was so off the wall that the next statement was "That's horrifying". The question was not asked of her. And, as you saw earlier today, she conceded by phone and gave her speech with dignity.

Edit: Goddamn, the fecking thing is over and I'm still fact-checking >.>

It was asked of her in a different setting soon after, a press conference and I cant think of her name but it was the woman fox had at hillarys hq last night who asked the question...hillary didn't answer and deflected instantly like she did with many questions. thats true i suppose and i give her fair dues for that...cant imagine it was an easy thing for her by any stretch!

mansize

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

An article that better explains what I meant

HellSquirrel

Depp wrote: »

It was asked of her in a different setting soon after, a press conference and I cant think of her name but it was the woman fox had at hillarys hq last night who asked the question...hillary didn't answer and deflected instantly like she did with many questions. thats true i suppose and i give her fair dues for that...cant imagine it was an easy thing for her by any stretch!

I bet it wasn't. Let's face it, the candidates didn't respect each other at all, and losing to a person you respect and trust to do the right thing is one thing. Losing to someone you can't respect and fear for the country in the hands of is quite another, especially when it's been as bitter as this election has been!

Sounds like you're talking about Megyn Kelly? I've not seen that one, but I'll see what I turn up.

Depp

HellSquirrel wrote: »

I bet it wasn't. Let's face it, the candidates didn't respect each other at all, and losing to a person you respect and trust to do the right thing is one thing. Losing to someone you can't respect and fear for the country in the hands of is quite another, especially when it's been as bitter as this election has been!

Sounds like you're talking about Megyn Kelly? I've not seen that one, but I'll see what I turn up.

no they had Megyn in studio just cant think of her name! she seemed to have be the travelling correspondant for fox attached to the clinton campaign

Pac1Man

Is McCarthy definitely out? Need to keep this momentum going.

Venom

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

We don't know if he'd have beaten him or if the gap would have been wider. An awful lot of people who would have voted for Sanders wouldn't vote for Hillary. Also, Sanders is a Social Democrat rather than a socialist in the 'nationalise-the-railways' sense.

Once it came out how the party totally screwed Sanders in favor of Clinton, she had little chance of picking up his voters.