rob316 wrote: » The irony of the feminists, "Its a tragedy a woman can't become the President" Isn't the very purpose of feminism to be valued just like your male counterpart and not because of your looks or gender? A woman will be president on merit some day, just like a black man was.
ashvsed wrote: » My gf says trump won because he was up against a women. I don't think that true. What if trump being in power does not change anything? the system that really runs the place is still there, the prez is just a figure-head.
Walter H Price wrote: » In the states Trump is already speaking about lower Tax's , removal of Obama care , reductions in welfare , Deportation of illegal immigrants. LePen and Wilders the same have been very stong on removing welfare for immigrants and deportations , i dont know if you've been to fance lately but i was and there are actual mini refugee camps all over Paris groups of Sub Saharans , Middle Eastern's , Roma Gypsys living on the streets , I'm sure there deportation would be welcomed by alot of french people giving the crime they bring and the general annoyance of being stopped or harassed every 15 seconds for change. An end to the overly PC cultural can only be a good thing , I'm sure wealth will be created probibly focused on the middle classes but I'm ok with that , less government , less welfare , lower tax , fewer immigrants all good in my book.
seenitall wrote: » On a personal level, I have to say I am delighted that Hillary didn't make it all the way. Again, speaking from a purely historical point of view, I would be much happier if someone more deserving of public trust and confidence ends up being the first woman in there.
Widdershins wrote: » Keep an eye on things as they unfold, then. Assuming the worst won't help.
eviltimeban wrote: » Well the Paris agreement is enshrined in law, and it would take him about four years to unpick it - that's about how long he'll have as a president I'm guessing. So it might not happen. He'll drag his feet, but perhaps not change much. Too many lobbyists. If anything Leonardo Di Caprio can make another movie about it.
Butters1979 wrote: » You'd be surprised how quick they'll change. Once they get out in the real world, get jobs, families and bills to pay they'll realise that anyone who isn't working is taking from them and their families. (Crude but this is how a lot of people think) their political ideals will shift. In every generation. the younger, college age of the population are almost always more liberal and left leaning, however this doesn't translate into a future surge in liberal voters.
wakka12 wrote: » The most worrying thing to me is that he's a climate change denier. At such an important time in world history, where we desperately need to become more sustainable together to save the planet, it could be catastrophic if he began to reverse any progress made in a massive country that consumes so much of the worlds resources as is.
wakka12 wrote: » The most worrying thing to me is that he's a climate change denier.
Pherekydes wrote: » Trump has already proposed a climate change skeptic as head of the EPA.
The Backwards Man wrote: » We all hope the poster is wrong. But there's more than a reasonable chance they will be right.
wakka12 wrote: » He will be business as usual, his mad claim to ban all muslims from entering the USA has already disappeared from his website, not that Im surprised
Akrasia wrote: » I get the urge to change things, but Trump is a total wild card. I give him about a 2% chance that he'll turn out to be a good president, a 30% chance that he'll just be business as usual or blocked by congress and therefore ineffectual, but a 65% chance that he'll make things much much worse. That is based on his Environmental, foreign policy and regulatory positions, and his likely appointments to the supreme court. As per Clinton, there was a 95% chance that she'd just be a business as usual politician with a small chance that she does something extreme and starts a war somewhere
Jelle1880 wrote: » As opposed to Trump furthering the interests of religious nutters and the big companies ? They're both different sides of the same coin.
robindch wrote: » Unfortunately, idiots have exactly the same kind of votes which much smarter people have.
listermint wrote: » Same percentages voted for Romney though... so, its not like they turned. It has been the mis-selling of Obamas healthcare that has many middle states changing their voting. It was being derided left right and centre that healthcare for all is bad. Many antagonists selling it as 'communism' and 'socialism' you know all things bad..... Hilarious that it big Pharma that was paying for this messaging. Big business controlling the mantra through their groups and their controlled senators. Its hilarious irony all the same.
Manic Moran wrote: » ... Wisconsin got ignored by Clinton this campaign, the first time in decades a major candidate didn't visit. I guess either they didn't like being taken for granted, or like being ignored.
Widdershins wrote: » Also, I'd be far more frightened of Hillary in power, furthering the interests of her Saudi pals.
Jelle1880 wrote: » Honest question: Do you believe they will be wrong ? So far everything points to Trump stacking the White House with corporate pawns aimed at furthering his own interests and that of his pals in Wall Street + some of his religious nutjob backers.
Akrasia wrote: » Yes, there's also a good chance that many Trump supporters will be oblivious to the harm he is doing and deny that he is breaking any of his pledges to clean up politics and 'make america great again'
Renegade Mechanic wrote: » It's quite possible but at least there is a slim chance that won't be true with the Gob. There was no chance at all with the Bush-Dynasty-freindly Clinton Syndicate. Have to go for the chance, however slim.
kilns wrote: » The scenario is very tricky for the Republicans now, they need Trump to be succesful or else they are dead in the water come the next election. Do they back him in Congress on the radical proposals for which he got elected or will they block them. I have a feeling he will row back on many of his OTT claims and if does in 4 years times people might be saying he wasnt that bad a president.
wes wrote: » Its pretty funny, that for people who are saying you shouldn't sneer at people, then turn around and do exactly that. If the idea that such sneering will back fire, then once the generation you denigrate so much are eventually in charge, then your in for a hell of a time .
Widdershins wrote: » Clearly you relish the thought. Has it occurred to you that you could be wrong?
