El Presidente Trump

ebbsy wrote: »

Of the 46% that didn't vote, I wonder are there any polls of a breakdown of Democrat etc ?

46% isn't that high for a U.S. presidential election...it was 45.13% in 2012.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/262915/voter-turnout-in-the-us-presidential-elections/

ebbsy wrote: »

Thats not the question I asked.

Well you're a charmer, aren't yeah. I thought you were implying that there was some significance to 46% figure. As for the rest, it would be just as easy for you to find the answer as it would anyone else.

foxtrot101 wrote: »

Well you're a charmer, aren't yeah. I thought you were implying that there was some significance to 46% figure. As for the rest, it would be just as easy for you to find the answer as it would anyone else.

Unless they're not interested in the answer.

MPFGLB wrote: »

We an only hope but what Trump does on the envirnoment effects the whole world and certainly your grand children and their children

And America is still the most powerful country in the World ....its foreign policy effects us all ...especially on the middle east and the impact that has on Europe. As Britain closes its doors tighter to immigrants maybe that will effect Ireland who remains part of Europe

Also Trump is not a big fan of Europe ....unless he puts that on for his buddy Farage...So Trumps US trade plans with Europe will effect Ireand

And finally if he changes tax lawas for American big business which he seems to want to do ...that may effect Irish jobs if some US multi nationals base themselves back in US ...

In global markets with layered capitalism we are all effected by what the US , China and Russia do

I heard the exact same opinion's said against GWBj & RTE also with the same reporter there giving us there bias view, GWBj policy's did not effect me or my family and ww3 did not start, the middle east has always been a powder keg ever since ww2 ended

Laois_Man wrote: »

You don't actually know that!

Well in that case you don't know it either or any one else here in what will happen.

What really gets me is I did see not any protests about the Chinese presidents visit or the prince from Saudi Arabia to Ireland ? Or RTE having spokespeople on night after night condemning them etc etc

Nor did i here RTE or anyone raise why our president is visiting Laos last week on an official tour when it has an appalling human rights record.

In other words all this hypocrisy in slanting presidents trumps win is just a load of begrudging bull**** cause there candidate didn't win.

ebbsy wrote: »

Well all I'm looking for is the answers why she lost, as opposed to listening to LGBT outrage etc.

A number of reasons, some of which can be skewed in a few ways.

- The heartlands have been in steady decline since their heyday. There is just not the call for the major industry that there once was and, like many other first-world countries, America has focussed more on intangibles - service sector, information sector and high-end technology. Coal and steel just aren't as big as they were and are unlikely to ever be again. Farming too has had a tough time of it for ..well, probably going on ninety years now. The people there feel left behind as indeed they are.

- City vs rural; Much the same as the above, with the added issue of the city being easier and more lucrative for the state as a whole to prop up. The city is making money (mostly), while the rural regions are losing money and people. Same everywhere, really.

- Social issues; The cities have also always been at the forefront of change and ideas and ideals. Not all of them are good trends, and some of them are (or in some cases -sound- silly until you look more closely at them). However, there's a significant strata of people who have been saying, guardedly, that they really could use some help here, thanks, and any time you lot want to focus on us as well as the gays, blacks, women, latinos, Native Americans...oh, great, now you have Muslims (aren't they the ones attacking us? Why the fcuk are you putting priority on them over us when we've needed help for generations?) and transgender? And what the hell is with all these gender words anyway? And on top of all that, -you're- getting to take the piss out of -us-? Fcuking liberals.

Which, when looked at like that, isn't actually unreasonable. Now, the other things are important too (although no, I don't think we need 32 gender specific terms either), but that particular group has been marginalised.

- The recession. Sorry folks, but it was pretty much all over. But it's generally pretty accepted that people do tend to turn more insular, nationalistic and Republican during a) times of war and b) times of recession.

- The war(s) - see above!

- Taking the two prior points into consideration, I do remember at the start that it was considered the Republicans' race to lose. Democratic had a chance because the Republican line-up was, to be honest, quite awful.

- The general rise of the right-wing. See previous two points, plus that we do tend to see shifts from one end of the spectrum to the other every generation or so. It's not usually quite this extreme, but **** happens.

- Okay, now we're moving into the more controversial points and ebbsy, we've talked enough now for us both to know we're on opposite sides of -some- of these aspects :P Take what you will from it; while I shall try to be fair, how I see it will come through.

- Clinton has been unpopular whenever she's actually -run- for something. It was the same when she ran for Senate, it was the same for Sec. State. Her popularity generally increases again once she's actually there. She is not a natural public speaker and is very much not a natural crowd-pleaser. She's a policy wonk and is well-known for it. Nerds don't tend to have the public touch. That alienated people.

- Clinton has also been under investigation over the years and there's the popular idea of "no smoke without fire". Now, nothing has ever been provable against her, bar the email business which ...yeah, looks bad, but at the same time, it wasn't anything that her predecessors didn't do too, including Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice. Pay-for-play is another one with the Clinton Foundation and again, there doesn't actually seem to be much evidence that it took place, but repeat something often enough and it sounds true. Benghazi was a particularly egregious example because she's actually -on the record- saying that something like this could happen if the Republicans don't stop screwing her office around with cutting funding for security for embassies just to mess with Obama. That she got the blame for that was actually downright unfair. Now, I'm not saying she's squeaky-clean. She's a career politician and has probably done and said some dodgy things. But so far, she does not appear to have done what was being thrown at her. But, mud sticks.

- The Democratic party very obviously favoring her over Sanders pissed off the left wing mirror of the right-wing that was following Trump. The more socialist end of the spectrum. The more so as there definitely were some shenanigans going on there, although it's still up in the air as to how much they actually affected the outcome (things were talked about, but it's hard to know how much was followed through).

- Comey. Just...Comey. I really can't say if he was doing it on purpose or not, and it may well be that he was just in a really awkward position, but by god did he jump the gun. And weakly falling back with a couple of days to go didn't clean things up.

- The Trump Aspect:
This can be broken down into a number of points.

- Rebellion against the status quo, rebellion against the "city elites". Trump fed into that with almost everything he said and did, while also having the mystique of being extremely rich and ..uh.. "pulling himself up by the bootstraps", the American Dream (we'll ignore for a moment that he absolutely didn't, the appearance is more important than the reality right now, as it was perceptions that won and lost the election).

- The populist touch, the "straight speaker". This is one of the most bewildering aspects, given his track record with lies, but again, perception. He was willing to say what others wouldn't dream of saying...but might sometimes want to say.

- The loss of trust in the media, which leans into the Trump aspect because he encouraged it, he -stridently- encouraged it. When you're told that you can't trust the media and half the stories out there are either lies or highly partisan or don't sound very interesting, how do you pick up which is true and which are false? After a while, when it seems that everyone is bloody well lying anyway and are only out for themselves, does it even matter? May as well pick the guy speaking directly to us and damn the consequences. It can't get much worse (yes, it can!). The whole thing around the media and the dramatic change in how we get the news (internet, social media, 24/7, there must Always Be A Story, fact-checking harder, what appeals to people) deserves more than a bullet point, it deserves a research paper, so I'll leave it at that.

- Potential foreign interference, both in the case of random people on the internet from different countries pissing in the fountain of truth (yeah, I'm looking at you, Paul Horner.), potentially Assange, and probably Russia, since a lot of it did fit their methodology - slip out some true information, controversial true information for preference and soften things up for slipping out propaganda. It's a pretty old KGB trick and it consistently works!

-And yeah, a minority of arseholes who do like the guy who will help raise the white race (white, male, straight part of it anyway) and put those pesky minorities and wimmins back in their place, end “political correctness”, reverse those nasty civil rights that create more competition for the superior race/gender and bring back a golden age of something or another. They –are- a minority, albeit a loud one and they’re revelling in getting to say **** that they’ve not been allowed to say for years now. Do they represent the majority? No, they don’t. But they do exist, and Trump sees a vote as a vote as a vote and never met a vote he didn’t like. In return, they latched on to the guy who didn’t get that welcoming the votes of arseholes legitimises their positions. –That- is why the KKK were celebrating. Not because the “alt-right” won, but because Trump’s the only one that would give them the time of day.

There's probably more too, but this is already a bit of an essay and my brain's suddenly blanked. Yeah, I know the last few points will be unpopular but I’m saying it because that’s where the evidence has pointed so far to me. Barring that I generally kept the Clinton and the Trump points together regardless of effect, I see it as roughly in order of importance/effect from top to bottom, but fairly interchangeable along the way.

^^^^ Did I just answer myself ?

The flying mouse wrote: »

In sum, Hillary Clinton has wrapped herself in President Obama’s foreign policy mantle to facilitate her rise to the presidency. However, that mantle and the ‘smart’ policies it purports to represent have made the world more dangerous and less free.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/5/hillary-clintons-foreign-policy-record-deserves-sc/

That was before the Election result. It's no wonder people who actually bother to broaden their minds would not vote for Clinton . She was a snake in the grass.

Its amazing the way some folks wont accept a democratic decision by the people. actually its not amazing its quite annoying.

Anyway iam outa here and I leave you all with a happy smile.

You're not really giving examples there. All the things covered in the Washington Post, barring some of the numbers which I'll give the benefit of the doubt to, have been examined, rehashed and she's been cleared of any criminal acts. And I don't think most people would think the FBI or the Congressional hearings (remember, Republican ones) were on her side!

Notably, the WP at the end there absolutely ignores all the Trump issues to present him as not only -the only- alternative but actually a decent one after spending most of its bullet points blaming Clinton for the state of the entire world. She was Sec. State, for heaven's sake, not elected to be God! Of course her record needs to be examined, but it should be examined impartially and fairly.

Regarding the democratic decision, well, technically she's won the popular vote, the direct democratic vote of the people, by something like 1.6m at this stage and the count isn't finished. She lost the Electoral College, and that's how the game goes though. But out of the two candidates, which of them has proven they'll concede graciously and which said they'd only accede to the results if they won? Like...what even is the hell on that count? That particular argument, which I've seen a number of times, is one that actually reflects well on Clinton and appallingly on Trump and yet for some mad reason, Clinton gets the heat for it. O.o It's bizarre.

Look, I don't particularly want to defend her blindly. But the problem is that the accusations that keep getting thrown at her keep proving to be empty. If there's something there, it actually hasn't been found yet, or at least, it's not one of the things that consistently gets thrown at her*. I've defended some of the more spurious Trump allegations too, but the problem is that there's enough there that is actually, definitely, publicly proven (hell, most of them he admitted himself to everyone watching!)

That's one of the really frustrating things about all this, the calls to wake up and investigate properly when the stuff that is being called out to investigate -has already been investigated-.


*Or at the very least, I've not seen it yet because whatever the real problem was, it was so mired in nonsense that it was difficult to pick out.

pumpkin4life wrote: »

The U.S economy has declined significantly under Obama on pretty much all counts.

In what sense?

InTheTrees wrote:

She got two million more votes than trump after all, you cant ignore that.

It's been ignored before. Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral colleges and became President. Thee end.