El Presidente Trump

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.

Sanders would have offered a proper alternative at least

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

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

Cringe. Catch a hold of yourselves.

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...

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

An article that better explains what I meant