Donald Trump

Status
Not open for further replies.
He's now doing free ads for people who say nice things about him!


Edit: Actually it wasn't a free ad. Linda Bean gave $60,000 to a Trump-supporting super PAC.
 
Last edited:
blueinsa said:
There are going to lots and lots of people looking for new jobs this morning.

Like him or loathe him, he won the election and the political elite who are now doing everything and anything to stop him doing what he was elected to do should hang their heads in shame imo. Its the same thing happening with us and the EU vote in a way and just smacks of people unable to accept they lost.

Remember the days where a losing political party just went about the next few years proving to an electorate why the should be trusted to regain power rather than crap like this every 5 mins?

I say the above as someone who doesn't think he is fit for office but never the less, he has been democratically elected and that is that.
Click to expand...

^^^^
good post
 
argyle said:
They did a few times on their website and in their reporting.

People might not like the BBC, CNN etc but it's incredible a soon to be President can be so thin skinned that he refuses to take questions from them.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that CNN and the BBC concentrated on the parts of the dossier about Russian influence, the dossier that the intelligence agencies thought important enough to bring to both President and President Elect. Neither went in for the more insane parts of the dossier, which is a lot of it.
That an intelligence service dossier is dismissed offhandedly as fake is a peculiar approach to follow.

I did note that trying to ask a question on behalf of an organisation which was being traduced was apparently being rude. Free media, eh?
 
Magicpole said:
In case you missed it , I know the 'news ' services in your country are god awful, which might explain you not getting the news that Clinton got 2m more votes.

Your assertion of giving it to someone less popular is screwed by the ability to understand getting two million more means more and not less.

Happy to help with that absolute fact.
Click to expand...

Thing is that we don't elect a President by popular vote. There are a ton of people that do not go vote in states where the electoral vote is in the bag. For instance, my Grandmother is in Oklahoma. She didn't vote because as she said "my vote doesn't matter here." Clinton beat Trump by 4 million votes in California. So she lost by 2 million in the other 49 states. Cherry picking statistics is great. The reason: Marijuana legalization was on the state ballot, so there was a "high" voter turnout in that very blue state. It ran up the score significantly as a result. Not saying that she wouldn't have still won the popular vote overall if that hadn't been on the ballot, but it likely wouldn't have been nearly as much of a runaway. Florida had medical legalization on the ballot as well, but it is pretty much a 50/50 state. So having increased voter turnout wouldn't skew the votes all that much either way for either party.
 
Pokes28 said:
I didn't dislike him personally. Hell I'd love to have a beer with the guy and talk some sports. But politically, the guy is about as far from me ideologically as he could be.
Click to expand...
Why? He's about as centre as America gets (and still to the right of the Tories in the UK).

How far right must you be to say the above?

Am I guessing you're pro life, pro death sentence (ironic given the pro life argument), against tax, in favour of huge defence spending and against poor people getting affordable healthcare?
 
Pokes28 said:
Thing is that we don't elect a President by popular vote. There are a ton of people that do not go vote in states where the electoral vote is in the bag. For instance, my Grandmother is in Oklahoma. She didn't vote because as she said "my vote doesn't matter here." Clinton beat Trump by 4 million votes in California. So she lost by 2 million in the other 49 states. Cherry picking statistics is great. The reason: Marijuana legalization was on the state ballot, so there was a "high" voter turnout in that very blue state. It ran up the score significantly as a result. Not saying that she wouldn't have still won the popular vote overall if that hadn't been on the ballot, but it likely wouldn't have been nearly as much of a runaway. Florida had medical legalization on the ballot as well, but it is pretty much a 50/50 state. So having increased voter turnout wouldn't skew the votes all that much either way for either party.
Click to expand...

I'd chalk CA's turnout up also to a Senate race that featured two Democrats running against each other. That's not going to drive up conservative turn out. Indeed, I simply left that portion of the ballot blank. I think the marijuana thing really didn't enter into the mix as a driver -- since Colorado, no one cares that much about it any longer as a social issue. It's not like Prop 8 in 08 (gay marriage) which was a huge driver.
 
Pokes28 said:
Thing is that we don't elect a President by popular vote. There are a ton of people that do not go vote in states where the electoral vote is in the bag. For instance, my Grandmother is in Oklahoma. She didn't vote because as she said "my vote doesn't matter here." Clinton beat Trump by 4 million votes in California. So she lost by 2 million in the other 49 states. Cherry picking statistics is great. The reason: Marijuana legalization was on the state ballot, so there was a "high" voter turnout in that very blue state. It ran up the score significantly as a result. Not saying that she wouldn't have still won the popular vote overall if that hadn't been on the ballot, but it likely wouldn't have been nearly as much of a runaway. Florida had medical legalization on the ballot as well, but it is pretty much a 50/50 state. So having increased voter turnout wouldn't skew the votes all that much either way for either party.
Click to expand...

You mentioned popular and I understand the electoral college and how it attempts to work.

She won the popular vote. She was more popular. That's it.

She didn't win the election due to the vagaries of your system, but your assertion it would have gone to her and she was less popular is wrong.

She received 2m votes more than KGB SuperMole Trump.

That's all I'm saying.
 
blueonblue said:
Ha ha ha, almost the perfect summation of a "Snowflake", suggestions of the other side being smarter and the obligatory little snide insult tacked on, you can almost hear the tearful little cry "Its not fair, I`m taking my ball home".

It was you and your chums that did not have the political capital, the world does not revolve around your ideals and people who hold a different view have the majority, an there is a big difference between sticking to your ideals and being a whinging little toerag.
Click to expand...

You won and we lost, fine, get on with it, but get off your high horse. Winning an election or a referendum means you have the green light to do whatever it is you're going to do, what it does not give you is a green light to demand compliance and orthodoxy, that way lies fascism. I do not agree with you, and nothing you do or say will change that.

If Trump closes down Planned Parenthood, redefines Black Lives Matter as a terrorist organisation, draws up a Muslim register or tries to fund his wall by somehow raiding repatriated monies, or any number of wild schemes and scams he's rumoured to be contemplating, are people "required" to shrug their shoulders and just accept it, because, well that's democracy? Of course they're not, and if they don't comply what then? Which agencies of the state do you suggest might be usefully employed to enforce compliance? What measures are acceptable to enforce orthodoxy?

Trump is going to target certain groups in the United States for "special attention". You effectively took away my EU citizenship, for every action there is a reaction, it is messy and it is not going to be pretty, particularly in the United States, but that's the way it is in a democracy, live with it.
 
Magicpole said:
You mentioned popular and I understand the electoral college and how it attempts to work.

She won the popular vote. She was more popular. That's it.

She didn't win the election due to the vagaries of your system, but your assertion it would have gone to her and she was less popular is wrong.

She received 2m votes more than KGB SuperMole Trump.

That's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...
Actually it was nearly 3 million more.
She got 48%, the shitgibbon got 46% and the rest got 6%.
 
west didsblue said:
Actually it was nearly 3 million more.
She got 48%, the shitgibbon got 46% and the rest got 6%.
Click to expand...

Well, there you go. Even more popular than I first thought. The third vote is a cop out, especially this time. I wonder how many of that 6% wish they had voted against the Trumpeteer now?

I would hope most as they contributed to allowing a mega arse to run the most powerful nation on earth.

Fucking mind blowing to my way of thinking. But, there you go.
 
west didsblue said:
He's now doing free ads for people who say nice things about him!


Edit: Actually it wasn't a free ad. Linda Bean gave $60,000 to a Trump-supporting super PAC.
Click to expand...


with that kind of cash you could get yourself a clipboard and some signatures, run for office and get absolutely practically zero votes to not get in and make zero difference, other than justifying it all.

what you waiting for?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top