45th President of the United States, Donald Trump.
Discussion
5ohmustang said:
.
Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
Doesn't The Donald live in a big city? Presumably then he also is part of the liberal elite you mention? Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
rscott said:
5ohmustang said:
.
Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
Doesn't The Donald live in a big city? Presumably then he also is part of the liberal elite you mention? Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
Seen the latest SNL intro - their version of the press conference :-)
https://youtu.be/4_Gf0mGJfP8
Particularly like the Russian flag lapel pin.
Alec Baldwin is obviously enjoying winding Trump up.. He was spotted last week wearing this :
- a Google translated Russian version of Trump's own caps.
https://youtu.be/4_Gf0mGJfP8
Particularly like the Russian flag lapel pin.
Alec Baldwin is obviously enjoying winding Trump up.. He was spotted last week wearing this :
- a Google translated Russian version of Trump's own caps.
davepoth said:
scherzkeks said:
No, it is unfair, just as the citizens united ruling was unfair. A society needs balanced representation of views, not just the views of monied interests. With the EC, there is also an extra layer of security in the form of the electors.
As an American, I find the uproar around the issue particularly funny. The losing party complains about the EC nearly every election. Obama was praising it until the neocon shill lost.
There is unfairness inherent in saying that one person's vote is more important than someone else's, which is in effect what the electoral college does. Most countries use one man one vote, and even the UK regularly redistricts to attempt to equalise the power of a single vote in general elections.As an American, I find the uproar around the issue particularly funny. The losing party complains about the EC nearly every election. Obama was praising it until the neocon shill lost.
Edited by scherzkeks on Saturday 14th January 22:38
In the original framing it was a compromise, as the southern states would not stand for "negroes" voting for the president. Added to that, the three-fifths compromise would give them more votes in the electoral college without having to allow the slaves to vote. Here are the relevant proceedings of the constitutional convention.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&a...
As it turns out the compromise they made nearly 250 years ago works for other reasons these days.
The other point about the electoral college is that it wasn't originally a rubber stamping exercise. The founding fathers imagined a large field of potential presidential candidates, and the electors were not tied to a particular candidate by their state's vote. They were given the duty of choosing on the electorate's behalf.
One of the big problems of the electoral college is that IMV it has contributed to the polarisation of the country. The Republicans have essentially given up on big urban areas, and the Democrats have done the same in rural areas. A one man one vote system would force the Republican party to attract votes from the cities, which would mean a moderation in their perspective.
Furthermore, electors have been expected to carry out the will of the public since the first 10 years of the existence of the Constitution. Faithless electors have never had an effect on the outcome of the election.
Lastly, Trump isn't a fit for the modern Repub party. His views don't really match up well on many social or foreign policy issues, which is why so many were against him.
rscott said:
5ohmustang said:
.
Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
Doesn't The Donald live in a big city? Presumably then he also is part of the liberal elite you mention? Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
turbobloke said:
Presumahly that arrogant self-anointed mindset is what's motivating people in Washington DC to demonstrate how out of touch they are firstly by backing a loser - OK a lot of voters would end up that way whoever became president elect - but then protesting democracy. Forget liberal elite, authoritarian fkwits is much closer to it. The right to demonstrate is one thing, but demonstrating your lack of respect for a democratic outcome is loser material, as per Billary. A well-matched assocation if ever there was one.
The thing that makes it so rich are clips like this:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPeo9WussxE
And I still chuckle at the golden filter applied to Hillary's side of the screen in that clip.
turbobloke said:
rscott said:
5ohmustang said:
.
Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
Doesn't The Donald live in a big city? Presumably then he also is part of the liberal elite you mention? Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
rscott said:
turbobloke said:
rscott said:
5ohmustang said:
.
Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
Doesn't The Donald live in a big city? Presumably then he also is part of the liberal elite you mention? Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
xRIEx said:
rscott said:
turbobloke said:
rscott said:
5ohmustang said:
.
Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
Doesn't The Donald live in a big city? Presumably then he also is part of the liberal elite you mention? Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
turbobloke said:
xRIEx said:
rscott said:
turbobloke said:
rscott said:
5ohmustang said:
.
Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
Doesn't The Donald live in a big city? Presumably then he also is part of the liberal elite you mention? Now live in a city, they are all very similar and have a common trait. Liberal elitism. If you do not fit into their ideals they will find a label for you that usually ends in ist.
Jimboka said:
I always wonder what motivates people like Trump to be president.
Aged 70, billions in the bank, nice wife & family / families.
Whatever your views on his politics, why does he bother to open himself up to hassle for the rest of his life, i kind of think he didn't think he'd win & regrets it now
he'd like his name written in history books, even as a bad president he'll have much better chance than as a "mere" billionaireAged 70, billions in the bank, nice wife & family / families.
Whatever your views on his politics, why does he bother to open himself up to hassle for the rest of his life, i kind of think he didn't think he'd win & regrets it now
Jimboka said:
I always wonder what motivates people like Trump to be president.
Aged 70, billions in the bank, nice wife & family / families.
Whatever your views on his politics, why does he bother to open himself up to hassle for the rest of his life, i kind of think he didn't think he'd win & regrets it now
He was subconsciously activated by seeing the "Queen of Diamonds" playing card while playing solitaire... Aged 70, billions in the bank, nice wife & family / families.
Whatever your views on his politics, why does he bother to open himself up to hassle for the rest of his life, i kind of think he didn't think he'd win & regrets it now
This is more what I want to hear and read: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38631832
BBC news said:
Speaking about a potential US-UK trade deal, he said: "We're gonna work very hard to get it done quickly and done properly. Good for both sides."
jmorgan said:
Thought Gove had been ejected into a black hole or something. Can we put him and Farage into the Thunderdome?
Hmm, two men enter, one man leave; that's not a good outcome. Can we change the rules to read "two men and a starving tiger enter..."?Edited by jmorgan on Monday 16th January 06:28
Countdown said:
scherzkeks said:
The MSM discredited themselves long ago -- back when you were no doubt ranting about Niger yellow cake and babies being torn from incubators. Now it's Trump peeing on Obama's bed.
I don't think they did. Even back then there were lots of media sources who knew that the stuff being reported about WMD was b0110x. That's why 2m people marched in London against GW2. It was mainly the wingnut element of the media that portrayed the Yellowcake evidence as some sort of proof.Tarring the entire media with the MSM tag is silly, to put it mildly, because they all have different viewpoints and agendas. However when they are ALL saying pretty much the same thing then that tells you something. Umpalatable as it may be for you.
What did that tell us, unpalatable or otherwise?
amusingduck said:
They all said pretty much the same thing - that Hillary Rodham Clinton would undoubtedly be the next POTUS.
What did that tell us, unpalatable or otherwise?
I'll bite. It told us that the polling companies didn't do a very good job. Pretty much all the media who supported her regularly mentioned her lead in the various polls.. What did that tell us, unpalatable or otherwise?
Halmyre said:
jmorgan said:
Thought Gove had been ejected into a black hole or something. Can we put him and Farage into the Thunderdome?
Hmm, two men enter, one man leave; that's not a good outcome. Can we change the rules to read "two men and a starving tiger enter..."?Edited by jmorgan on Monday 16th January 06:28
rscott said:
amusingduck said:
They all said pretty much the same thing - that Hillary Rodham Clinton would undoubtedly be the next POTUS.
What did that tell us, unpalatable or otherwise?
I'll bite. It told us that the polling companies didn't do a very good job. Pretty much all the media who supported her regularly mentioned her lead in the various polls.. What did that tell us, unpalatable or otherwise?
Which is why I disagree with "when they're all saying pretty much the same thing, it tells you something". Maybe they're right, maybe they're wrong. Who knows.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff