2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Forget the obstructionists. He started his first term with a solid senate majority. But he couldn't make it count.

You mean he started with a senate AND house majority, passed Obamacare, pissed off conservatives and lost the house in a low-turnout midterm election. Ever since then he has not been able to get a single significant initiative through Congress.
 
You mean he started with a senate AND house majority, passed Obamacare, pissed off conservatives and lost the house in a low-turnout midterm election. Ever since then he has not been able to get a single significant initiative through Congress.

I just think Obama could have done lot more. Don't get me wrong, he is a great leader but as a politician he had a lot to learn during his first term.
 
I just think Obama could have done lot more. Don't get me wrong, he is a great leader but as a politician he had a lot to learn during his first term.

The accusation leveled at the time at him was that he was not good at "schmoozing". To be honest though, there are some in Congress who will vote against any Obama initiative because he's Obama. I mean McConnell said something to that effect IIRC.

Passing Obamacare took all of his political capital and he succeeded where Bill and Hillary failed spectacularly. Let's not underestimate that achievement.
 
I just think Obama could have done lot more. Don't get me wrong, he is a great leader but as a politician he had a lot to learn during his first term.

He had filibuster-proof majority in Senate for 3 months, and a third of House Dems were blue dog Democrats recruited by Howard Dean's famed 50 state strategy who weren't afraid to vote against him to save their seats (which they eventually lost in the 2010 midterm anyway)

Throw the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression into the mix and he didn't have a lot of political capital to work with anymore.
 
He had filibuster-proof majority in Senate for 3 months, and a third of House Dems were blue dog Democrats recruited by Howard Dean's famed 50 state strategy who weren't afraid to vote against him to save their seats (which they eventually lost in the 2010 midterm anyway)

Throw the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression into the mix and he didn't have a lot of political capital to work with anymore.

He knew the circumstances under which he was taking office. This isn't to take credit away from what he has accomplished. But he was a bit too arrogant in his approach/strategy which in turn caused the political paralysis during the later part of his term.
 
He knew the circumstances under which he was taking office. This isn't to take credit away from what he has accomplished. But he was a bit too arrogant in his approach/strategy which in turn caused the political paralysis during the later part of his term.

It's probably true to say that he was being a bit too idealistic in his approach, but given the way he repeatedly entreated the GOP to compromise, I'm not sure you can say that's arrogance. And he didn't know the full scope of the crisis upon taking office, that is well documented.

Always remember that the public option in the ACA was killed by blue dogs. Not much you can do when your allies stab you in the back.
 
Sitting there, right beyond Donald at his rally. Apparently they´re buddies. You might remember Mark the veteran Florida congressman from his many visits on Bill O´reilly show on Fox: "Mark Foley is the co-chairman of the House Missing and Exploited Children Caucus. He's been on this program many times on FOX News Channel, often talking about protecting the kids."

Here´s Mark Foley caught texting 16 year old congressional male pages: "how's my favorite young stud doing did you spank it this weekend where did you unload it cute butt bouncing in the air."

LOL. Make America cute butt again!
 
I do think he makes a fair point, actually. It's obviously not just that, as there are many more factors at play, but going for lesser evils on a consistent basis can end up alienating large portions of a voter-base and lead to long-term division.

Look at the Labour party. Their switch to a more moderate approach under Blair was immensely successful for a sustained period...yet they now appear to be on the brink of collapse because the membership vastly prefers a perceived anti-establishment option who isn't what typically would win an election or be expected of a major party, but appeals to voters. Many feel the moderate option is still better, yet the party membership is no longer willing to tolerate the things they believe the party have done fundamentally wrong for the sake of a greater chance of government.

Likewise, someone such as Farage largely built UKIP's support by capitalising on disillusioned Tories at first who felt like the party was doing nothing on the issue of Europe. Those who switched from Tory to UKIP in 2015 probably knew they were risking a Labour alternative who wouldn't give them a referendum...yet still did it anyway. Farage then further built support for Brexit by capitalising upon Labour disillusionment of a different kind to Corbyn supporters in the north.

The Dems have arguably been lucky this time due to the fact that their opponent is so abhorrent and incompetent and within an extremely divided and outdated party. But with a more competent opposition next time? It's perfectly possible the Republicans could one day capitalise on frustrations within the Dems (such as those of Sanders supporters) if they become a lot more widespread and mainstream in years to come. Not that it's an immediate pressing issue, but I'm not sure it's one that should be dismissed at hand.


It is not just about the lesser of two evil. The two party conventions were just big PR exercises. Meaningful discussion or controversy is forbidden. Looks and image is everything, while content is non-existent. We are at the point where it is almost unthinkable to have honest competition about ideas/competence in and between parties. 95% of all adds, speeches, conventions, rallies and statements are completely devoid of meaning and just PR exercises. It works due to the partisan nature of our society. Both parties could take a dump on stage and still get support from their voters as long as they make sure to say: “this dump is better than Trump/HC.” Under these circumstances any meaningful dialogue breaks down. Democrats are defending ideas, that they absolutely hated and despised in the recent past and the GOP has a candidate who is contradicting himself in almost every sentence. Both sides are so deep down their own delusional bubble, that they don´t even realize anymore how utterly hypocritical and ridiculous they are. People outside these partisan bubbles very much do see that and the reputation of politicians is in free-fall.

Now non of this would really matter, if politicians would do a decent job. Lets face it, most people don´t care about democracy or really anything as long as government can deliver favorable policy outcomes. That’s where it gets tricky, because growing parts of society doubt that politicians can do that. Established parties/candidates are losing support in breathtaking speed and not just in some, but in almost all western countries. But the parties/candidates who fill that void are often quite scary. The right-wing nationalists and populists protest parties are increasing their vote share in almost every election. More and more people are just so fed up with politics that they´d vote for anyone as long as he is not part of the guard of old established status-quo politicians. There are a only few promising new parties/candidates (e.g. Sanders in the USA/Ciudadanos in Spain [or Syriza, Podemos, Corbyn, if you believe in the far, but democratic left]). But if they can´t make any meaningful impact, the rather undemocratic and nationalistic scare-mongers on the far right/left will start to get into government.
So, no Trump, brexit, the FN, the AfD, PEGIDA, M5S, Wilders, PiS, Orban, Strache, golden dawn and all the other examples are not just an on/offs. They are the consequence of government being unable to solve certain problems and one thing is certain: Clinton won´t solve any of the underlying problems. She´ll just confirm all the bad stereotypes about politicians.
 
I just think Obama could have done lot more. Don't get me wrong, he is a great leader but as a politician he had a lot to learn during his first term.

[repost]

These guys talk a lot about his first few months, his compromise approach, and what he could have done differently. Thomas Frank is leftist, Krugman is a Hillary supporter.
 
He knew the circumstances under which he was taking office. This isn't to take credit away from what he has accomplished. But he was a bit too arrogant in his approach/strategy which in turn caused the political paralysis during the later part of his term.

The political paralysis took place because of Republican obstructionism, including GOP members who questioned his birth certificate and heckled him during State of the Union speeches. His only mistake was spending the first two years attempting to work with them, which they cynically used to waste time until they could erode his popularity and regain control of Congress in 2010, which led to 6 years of unprecedented obstructionism on nearly every policy.
 
The whole idea of the USA was an ideal. A country that made people that wanted to gain wealth from hard work be an owner and a family that was independent. That's were the 2nd ammendment comes from. A people that can defend themselves against a tyrannical government .

That is an America I can say feck yeah. Theres a lot of people that can't be bothered to even vote.

Me personally I'm not one. This country took! In and has done me well . I do get the issues

the right to bear arms also evolved along the lines of a minority of whites in the South having to keep control of a large African American population.

This hard work, gain wealth, be an owner, be independent is such an exceptionalist entitled propaganda bullshite that these exceptional, entitled Americans love to believe. Every fecking body believes in that, just in America you had an abundance of land taken from the expelled or dying off natives, incredible wealth of resources given to private entities, cheap labor to form a modern, strong economy, and open immigration without their previous, stifling class structures to keep things going. That and a new deal socialism that created a massive, vibrant middle class with a lot of social investment.

The only ones historically who have really needed to arm themselves from tyrannical government and an asshole portion of the population have been African Americans and their descendants. And funny enough, much of the second ammendment developed to keep these uppity African Americans in check.
 
Now non of this would really matter, if politicians would do a decent job. Lets face it, most people don´t care about democracy or really anything as long as government can deliver favorable policy outcomes.

Really? That's a slippery slope you are getting on. If not democracy, what else? Communism? Benevolent dictatorship? Maybe it doesn't work well and frustrates the hell out of me...but still I can't think of anything better as alternative.

The important point to note is that any mode of governance is just a tool. It depends on people on how to use it. Blaming the government when it's the same people who elected it is just going around in circles.

As I said before, solution would be to implement a None of the Above option in ballots to avoid having to mandatorily choose between the two.
 
Really? That's a slippery slope you are getting on. If not democracy, what else? Communism? Benevolent dictatorship? Maybe it doesn't work well and frustrates the hell out of me...but still I can't think of anything better as alternative.

The important point to note is that any mode of governance is just a tool. It depends on people on how to use it. Blaming the government when it's the same people who elected it is just going around in circles.

As I said before, solution would be to implement a None of the Above option in ballots to avoid having to mandatorily choose between the two.

I think Pedro just meant that most people would put their favored policies above democracy itself. not that its his preferred position. But when you look over the course of human politics, societies have often accepted corruption, suppression of certain rights, and even dictatorship, as long as policy was perceived as working.
 
Trump just called Obama the "Founder of ISIS" Nothing new I suppose as he's hinted at Hillary starting the terror group before, but it just shows yet again how low the man will stoop. Nothing is beyond him, no insult too big or offensive. Such a sad little man with SERIOUS issues.

He's also a lying, cheating crook!

Hillary's latest ad shows this perfectly. A great ad and I think will sop and make more than a few people think.

 
Last edited:
The political paralysis took place because of Republican obstructionism, including GOP members who questioned his birth certificate and heckled him during State of the Union speeches. His only mistake was spending the first two years attempting to work with them, which they cynically used to waste time until they could erode his popularity and regain control of Congress in 2010, which led to 6 years of unprecedented obstructionism on nearly every policy.

He had an excellent first 2 years. Getting the economy back on track, Obamacare, and starting the troop winddowns from Iraq and Afghanistan. He does say he and the party could have done better in the midterm elections.
 
I miss the days when Bernie was running vs Hillary and everybody was talking sense about Hillary and her true colors.

Now, because the opposite candidate is a man child, some are trying to make Hillary look like a nobel prize candidate, when she is exactly the same shit as republicans.

People forget way too easily, and is manipulated by the media even easier. The establishment celebrates.

just a little reminder... although it will be ignored and forgotten.

83fba3c656999a8948cab36328cd2e4d.jpg
 
I miss the days when Bernie was running vs Hillary and everybody was talking sense about Hillary and her true colors.

Now, because the opposite candidate is a man child, some are trying to make Hillary look like a nobel prize candidate, when she is exactly the same shit as republicans.

People forget way too easily, and is manipulated by the media even easier. The establishment celebrates.

just a little reminder... although it will be ignored and forgotten.

83fba3c656999a8948cab36328cd2e4d.jpg

Bernie is gone and isn't coming back. There are only two viable candidates left and its really pointless to look backward as if doing so will change the reality of the present.
 
Bernie is gone and isn't coming back. There are only two viable candidates left and its really pointless to look backward as if doing so will change the reality of the present.

I can't believe that this needs to be stated daily.

Just had an USCIS officer come to my office for a spot check on my visa extension. I'm on L1-A. Client scheduled an interview in a meeting room and the interview went fine and he wanted to visit my desk as well. Had Manchester United scarfs and photos and he said 'football?' He also wanted a copy of my paystub, so I had to access adp site for a print out. While I was taking printouts, he saw bookmarks for the USCIS green card process in Chrome and asked me if I'm applying.

I told him that I haven't taken the final decision and it will depend one way or another on the election results in November. If he's a republican and he's kicking me out, at least I'm going out in protest :D
 
I miss the days when Bernie was running vs Hillary and everybody was talking sense about Hillary and her true colors.

Now, because the opposite candidate is a man child, some are trying to make Hillary look like a nobel prize candidate, when she is exactly the same shit as republicans.

People forget way too easily, and is manipulated by the media even easier. The establishment celebrates.

just a little reminder... although it will be ignored and forgotten.

83fba3c656999a8948cab36328cd2e4d.jpg

Hillary started rejecting donations by for-profit prison companies in Feb this year, and is threadinng a fine line between supporting her husband's crime bill like she did in 1994 and a more liberal position. The gay rights thing is much more complex. Also, there was no vote on Syria AFAIK.
Other than that, it's mostly true.
 
I can't believe that this needs to be stated daily.

Just had an USCIS officer come to my office for a spot check on my visa extension. I'm on L1-A. Client scheduled an interview in a meeting room and the interview went fine and he wanted to visit my desk as well. Had Manchester United scarfs and photos and he said 'football?' He also wanted a copy of my paystub, so I had to access adp site for a print out. While I was taking printouts, he saw bookmarks for the USCIS green card process in Chrome and asked me if I'm applying.

I told him that I haven't taken the final decision and it will depend one way or another on the election results in November. If he's a republican and he's kicking me out, at least I'm going out in protest :D

Isn't there some changes in your visa/tax status if you apply? I remember reading something like that while filing taxes ast year.
 
Last edited:
Isn't there some changes in your visa/tax status if you apply? I remember reading something like that while filing last year.

Green card process is long drawn out normally if you are applying in Eb2 and there are multiple status changes within that application process. I'm eligible for EB1, and those are processed within 3 to 4 months normally. So depends on the process
 
Really? That's a slippery slope you are getting on. If not democracy, what else? Communism? Benevolent dictatorship? Maybe it doesn't work well and frustrates the hell out of me...but still I can't think of anything better as alternative.

The important point to note is that any mode of governance is just a tool. It depends on people on how to use it. Blaming the government when it's the same people who elected it is just going around in circles.

As I said before, solution would be to implement a None of the Above option in ballots to avoid having to mandatorily choose between the two.

I ment what marcelofalcon said. As long as the economy is doing fine, few people complain about government overreach or bad governance. Just look at China or turkey, but the same is true in our countries. Democracy is clearly the best form of government. Still currently many democracies aren't doing particularly well. What's really setting western countries apart are their commitments to constitutions, the rule of law, independent courts, individual rights and all that. Voting not so much.
I am also not just blaming "those evil elites". Ordinary people have it in their hands to elect better candidates. Nobody was forced to vote for Hillary or trump. Most people who still voted for them in the primaries are just plain stupid. It is pointless to talk about trump because we all know that he is bad shit crazy. But look at Hillary. Her policy proposals are as mainstream as it gets. There are many well-versed politicians who support the same ideas without being extremely corrupt and shady. Why would anyone support Hillary over one of them? There is no easy solution; you can't stop the electorate from making dumb choices. What we need is a more enlightened democratic culture. We should look at the few positive examples (e.g. Swiss) to understand how we can improve.
 
Really? That's a slippery slope you are getting on. If not democracy, what else? Communism? Benevolent dictatorship? Maybe it doesn't work well and frustrates the hell out of me...but still I can't think of anything better as alternative.

The important point to note is that any mode of governance is just a tool. It depends on people on how to use it. Blaming the government when it's the same people who elected it is just going around in circles.

As I said before, solution would be to implement a None of the Above option in ballots to avoid having to mandatorily choose between the two.

Aye. I'll volunteer, if need be.
 
I ment what marcelofalcon said. As long as the economy is doing fine, few people complain about government overreach or bad governance. Just look at China or turkey, but the same is true in our countries.

Awful examples. I've lived in China and will say hands down, I pity all of them. The government is big on 'Ignorance is bliss' and the local populace has little or no knowledge on global events. Social media is banned, no freedom of any kind and absolutely no check on government. Yes, economically it is big...but without freedom, it just becomes a rich prison.

There is no easy solution; you can't stop the electorate from making dumb choices. What we need is a more enlightened democratic culture.

Agree with that, though!
 
Awful examples. I've lived in China and will say hands down, I pity all of them. The government is big on 'Ignorance is bliss' and the local populace has little or no knowledge on global events. Social media is banned, no freedom of any kind and absolutely no check on government. Yes, economically it is big...but without freedom, it just becomes a rich prison.



Agree with that, though!
My point isn't that China has a superior system. Of course not. Still the people support the party (to some extend) despite all the repression as long as they continue to enjoy enough yoy%gdp growth. If the US economy would take a nosedive in the next 70 days, trump would have a reasonable shot at winning despite his horror show. The Arab spring was (not exclusively, but to some extend) triggered by economic problems. My point is: most people can accept a lot of things as long as they are doing alright.
 
This blonde woman on CNN should be (insert word of choice) for agreeing with Trump that Pres Obama is the founder of ISIS, especially immediately AFTER a retired General had just explained to the panel exactly how ISIS began (he obviously has actual knowledge and isn't just some ideologue). This is exactly why I refuse to debate persons and comment on social media posts. Most persons are too far up their own ass to entertain a differing opinion (especially when facts support the opposing view). This GE election cycle has left me disgusted with the entire system and public as a whole.

They can never stay on topic. Talking about tax returns, having a bit of back and forth, and the Trump side resorts to "what's in those emails?" It's always pivot to red herrings.
 
Last edited:
This GE election cycle has left me disgusted with the entire system and public as a whole.

All that coupled with the EU referendum here in the UK and the response and attitude of many since then, I agree with you wholeheartedly. It's a very sad time in my opinion and I really try not to think about it all too much as its too depressing. I really try to just concentrate on my friends and family and the beauty surrounding me rather than dwell on stuff like this too much.
 
Here's Paula White, Trump's "spiritual advisor." A televangelist as a spiritual advisor. A televangelist with a $5M net worth. Basically, he picked someone with a public persona.
 
Last edited:
This blonde woman on CNN should be (insert word of choice) for agreeing with Trump that Pres Obama is the founder of ISIS, especially immediately AFTER a retired General had just explained to the panel exactly how ISIS began (he obviously has actual knowledge and isn't just some ideologue). This is exactly why I refuse to debate persons and comment on social media posts. Most persons are too far up their own ass to entertain a differing opinion (especially when facts support the opposing view). This GE election cycle has left me disgusted with the entire system and public as a whole.

They can never stay on topic. Talking about tax returns, having a bit of back and forth, and the Trump side resorts to "what's in those emails?" It's always pivot to red herrings.

Do yourself a favour and stop listening to those nut jobs. You'll see improvements within hours.
 
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/807a...-trumps-nc-campaign-director-pointed-gun-aide

Lawsuit: Trump's NC campaign director pointed gun at aide

In his lawsuit, Bordini alleges Phillip also pulled his gun on at least four other people within the Trump organization. The behavior was so widely recognized within the campaign that others knew the caliber of his gun, the lawsuit says.

"Some described Phillip as initially calm. Then, he would brandish his weapon, put its barrel against their bodies or aim it at them," the lawsuit states. "He would wait for his victims to show fear and then calmly conceal his weapon again."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.