45th President of the United States, Donald Trump. (Vol 4)

[Tallow]

p1stonhead said:

I mean, yes she was a terrible candidate, but its not a red herring. She was more popular. The rules were of course known by all, but it is one of the reasons she isnt in the white house.

Yes, but as Davos123 says above, Trump campaigned on the strategy of aiming to win the election. There was nothing stopping Clinton doing the same. The popular vote argument sometimes seems to me to be used by Democrats as a "consolation prize" of sorts. I don't recall this being brought up in previous elections when the Democrats won.

[p1stonhead]

Davos123 said:

p1stonhead said:

She was more popular.

The popular vote results do not definitively prove that at all. The voting system fundamentally dictates how people campaign and how they vote, you cannot draw anything meaningful from the popular vote in an electoral college system. More votes does not equal more popular in this context - you can't quantify popularity amongst those that didn't vote and many of those people (for example, Republicans in California) may well have not bothered voting because their vote wouldn't make a difference. If the election result was decided by who was most popular the results would have been different - Trump might have won, Clinton might have - neither of us know and the popular vote results don't help us to understand what would have happened.

To be fair, cant argue with any of that....

[Davos123]

p1stonhead said:

Yes they would have campaigned differently, but Hillary got over 60% of the vote in California. He couldn't have made a difference there.

Well this is precisely my point. There are what? 30 million voters in California that Trump didn't speak to at all? Plus in many other places he couldn't win. The same is true of Clinton in places like Texas. If the election was decided on the popular vote, Trump wouldn't need to care about winning a majority there so he'd campaign there more and voters would have a vote that mattered, so Republicans would be more likely to turn out to vote in California as would Democrats in Texas.

[Davos123]

p1stonhead said:

To be fair, cant argue with any of that....

fwiw I think a popular vote contest between the two would be fascinating. Clinton's problem is that basically nobody actually likes her, so she struggles to get people to the booths. Trump's problem is most people absolutely hate him, but he has a significant number more people that like him than Clinton does. Would be interesting to see if people would turnout to vote for Clinton motivated by a hatred of Trump more so in a popular vote system.

Eurgh, I hate typing about Clinton. The fking idiocy and arrogance of the Democrats to let such an obviously flawed and unpopular candidate run is the reason we're in this mess in the first place. Shame Biden didn't stand up to her.

[Escapegoat]

IJB1959 said:

in 1979 I worked for the MoD in military US funded satellite space programs. The press release of one particular project was it was just a communications satellite, not so at all. It was actually to observe and track this thing........
http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2015/02/black-knight...

Insert notsureifserious.gif here.

[Baron Greenback]

Kinky said:

ozzuk said:

I was literally laughing out loud when I read the news on lunch. Trump now wants to dominate space. Dear God. It was only a matter of time though, his ego is too big for the Earth.

I'm guessing that's where he thinks all these Mexican aliens are coming from ... watch out for his next budget request .... for a space wall

I thought you lot were talking about his comment ages ago on Space Force and he heard the crowd going nuts or laughing at him (couldnt workout which) but no he has made it offical! So he stopped South Korea armed exercise due to expense now he want to make a completely new Armed Forces with complete budget and headquarters!

[anonymous-user]

frankenstein12 said:

Not an expert in American politics and law but my understanding is laws need to be passed by Congress/House of representatives before passing into Senate for a final vote.

While Republicans control both by majority in Senate it's a tiny majority and in Congress it's not quite so small but is small enough that laws can be blocked due to individual Republicans voting against the party which they are of course allowed to do.

Given there are plenty of republican representatives who dislike Trump it is not hard to imagine enough of them voting with the Democrats more because of Trump than issue with any law.

As such it is not as easy to pass laws as you and others may wish to perceive it to be.

Ah. So you agree that Donny has to ask Democrats to help him because he can’t get all of the Republicans to vote on his side.

Now, let’s see. Who does that mean is doing the obstruction: Republicans or Democrats?

[anonymous-user]

frankenstein12 said:

Greg66 said:

Explain this please. Why does Trump need the democrats’ help when the GOP controls both houses?

And why should American politicians vote to pay for a wall that Trump told them Mexico would pay for?

As to paying for the wall. It's not the politicians paying for it. That aside it is a bit of an ask given Trump said Mexico will pay for it however it was one of the promises he made when running that he would build the wall and he is keeping it or trying to.

Who pays for it is simply a sticking point as it's possible he will get Mexico to pay for it indirectly via taxes.

Genuine non-sensical babbling, right there.

[anonymous-user]

p1stonhead said:

He is 9 votes short (60 needed, he has 51) to pass legislation if Dems say no.

The 60/40 rule in the Senate only applies to stop a debate and force a vote. A bill can be passed 50/50 with Pence casting the deciding vote if need be.

[NRS]

frankenstein12 said:

sugerbear said:

There is no reason why the cannot, if identified as asylum seekers, be deported back together straight away (you can argue the constitution does or doesn’t require due process all day long) but there is no reason why adults need to be removed / separated from their children.

The only reason for doing it is so pictures will be released and deter future people from seeking asylum. If anything the process of splitting up families is more expensive to the US taxpayer.

So basically being a for s sake.

Actually no. According to the BCA there are a lot of kids coming over unaccompanied and in some cases being used to smuggle adults over by pretending to be the parents.

As such keeping those kids with the adults who are not related or allowing those adults to be kept in a facility with other children puts kids at risk of unnecessary harm.

Generally before now I thought you were someone trying to argue the other side. Now it's clear you're a bit of a blind sicko.

Why not just kill them all, as that will get things moving more quickly. If the end justifies the mean then surely we can just step things up a level again to get it sorted out? Or this should be applied to all kids? Some parents are abusers, so maybe we can help all kids and remove them from their parents, to avoid putting the kids at risk of unnecessary harm?

I also hope you end up in a similar situation one day so you can see what it's like from the other side.

[frankenstein12]

Challo said:

Byker28i said:

Germany is lying when they report crime is down 10% says trump, the persistent liar


Donald J. Trump
?Verified account @realDonaldTrump
26m26 minutes ago

Crime in Germany is up 10% plus (officials do not want to report these crimes) since migrants were accepted. Others countries are even worse. Be smart America!

So he knows the real story and what Germany is officially reporting is just FAKE NEWS..!!

The guy is an idiot.

This is from 2015..

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6668/germany-mi...

It is worth bearing in mind that in Germany like in the UK when the numbers start to look bad in terms of crimes they re assign what is defined as crime or how they report them to reduce the figure.

If you read the article it pretty much alludes to the fact the government has reduced the crime stats by making sure certain items are not recorded.
It also points out that often low level crime is not even reported.

Trump is not wrong that crime in Germany has gone up. Lots of senior police have spoken out about it.

[Bill]

Tallow said:

Yes, but as Davos123 says above, Trump campaigned on the strategy of aiming to win the election. There was nothing stopping Clinton doing the same. The popular vote argument sometimes seems to me to be used by Democrats as a "consolation prize" of sorts. I don't recall this being brought up in previous elections when the Democrats won.

To be fair, Trump brings it up more than anyone else.

[frankenstein12]

p1stonhead said:

I had some posts today removed because someone cried about it

There were a few over the day obviously so I dont even know which ones they were.

Its pretty stupid. My response is to just ignore those who are abusive on forum. I see no benefit to playing their game and sending abusive or insulting PM's

[frankenstein12]

captain_cynic said:

Now you're begining to understand Trumplish. Language of 'Murica.

Seriously though, I doubt Trump had the hispanic vote, at least not by much. Maybe in Florida with the Dems pushing softer policies with Cuba but even then that's a stretch.

Trumps main audience is white, religious rednecks. Pictures like that are the spanking material.

What Trump has lost, that the Reps will miss is the vote of middle class educated white Americans.

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/2016/11/09/hispanic-vote-election-2016-donald-trump-hillary-clinton/93540772/

[NRS]

frankenstein12 said:

This is from 2015..

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6668/germany-mi...

It is worth bearing in mind that in Germany like in the UK when the numbers start to look bad in terms of crimes they re assign what is defined as crime or how they report them to reduce the figure.

If you read the article it pretty much alludes to the fact the government has reduced the crime stats by making sure certain items are not recorded.
It also points out that often low level crime is not even reported.

Trump is not wrong that crime in Germany has gone up. Lots of senior police have spoken out about it.

Sweden is brought up as an example of doing that. Yet for example they made their laws a lot stricter on what was called rape, so the rape stats jumped as a result. Which version are we supposed to believe?

[frankenstein12]

Tony427 said:

So how will Trump get Mexicans to pay taxes for a wall they dont want and refuse to pay for?

Poor choice of words. He isn't going to tax them directly he will most likely try to use tariffs etc to get the money back.
As to the shock over 22bn well given how much money the US spends on other pointless crap 22bn seems almost reasonable.

[NRS]

frankenstein12 said:

Tony427 said:

So how will Trump get Mexicans to pay taxes for a wall they dont want and refuse to pay for?

Poor choice of words. He isn't going to tax them directly he will most likely try to use tariffs etc to get the money back.
As to the shock over 22bn well given how much money the US spends on other pointless crap 22bn seems almost reasonable.

What happens when the Mexicans slap the exact same tariff value back on the US. You know, like China, Canada etc are doing?

[frankenstein12]

Greg66 said:

Ah. So you agree that Donny has to ask Democrats to help him because he can’t get all of the Republicans to vote on his side.

Now, let’s see. Who does that mean is doing the obstruction: Republicans or Democrats?

Mostly democrats but assisted by a few Republicans. Majority democrats hate trump and would vote against him regardless. I am at a point where if Trump drafted a law to get rid of ICE and border controls Democrats would vote against that too simply because it was Trump doing it.

[NRS]

frankenstein12 said:

Greg66 said:

Ah. So you agree that Donny has to ask Democrats to help him because he can’t get all of the Republicans to vote on his side.

Now, let’s see. Who does that mean is doing the obstruction: Republicans or Democrats?

Mostly democrats but assisted by a few Republicans. Majority democrats hate trump and would vote against him regardless. I am at a point where if Trump drafted a law to get rid of ICE and border controls Democrats would vote against that too simply because it was Trump doing it.

Like the Republicans did to Obama sometimes? Or Trump trying to remove all the stuff Obama did because it was him that did it? Like the Iran deal, when he presumably is trying to get exactly the same deal in North Korea.

[turbobloke]

minimoog said:

turbobloke said:

Billary

fking hell. You're still using this wkers phrase?

Why not when it gets a rise out of Billary's bankers every time.



Or, you might just have a brain cell spare to realise that while masturbating is universal, being able to discuss politics even humorously (tastes vary) requires that spare cell. Free one up and give it a go.



Meanwhile it looks as though Billary isn't in the White House and won't be, any time soon. Never mind!