U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[Larks2242 251]

So in what was expected to be Chris Christe's to loose, Jeff Sessions is chosen as Attorney General.

 

Sessions being the most outspoken anti immigration member of congress and first to endorse Trump and the wall, Safe to say he isn't appearing to backtrack on his plans.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

@MilitantRadical :

1. Scapegoating an ethnic group (Jews vs Muslims and Mexicans)

2. Building walls to keep ethnic groups in their place (Berlin and ghetto walls vs border wall)

3. Advocating for the arrest of political opponents (also in common with Stalin)

4. Promising to rebuild former glory (fictional Aryan history vs "Make America Great Again")

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

44 minutes ago, OcramsRzr said:

@MilitantRadical :

1. Scapegoating an ethnic group (Jews vs Muslims and Mexicans)

2. Building walls to keep ethnic groups in their place (Berlin and ghetto walls vs border wall)

3. Advocating for the arrest of political opponents (also in common with Stalin)

4. Promising to rebuild former glory (fictional Aryan history vs "Make America Great Again")

There is a very simple reason why Hitler was Hitler- he was full of self-hate and self-pity and failed in life in his early years. He found a scapegoat for his problems- the Jews, and he flourished in a climate of fear, divisiveness, racism and wanting to radically change society for the greater good. Hitler went all the way and pummelled the very depths of evil, all that he hated he had to control.

Trump is a successful businessman, he may be narcissistic, a bit sexist and brash, but he is a negotiator and he is affiliating himself with people who have very conservative values, very traditional values as well. There's many ways of looking at the world, for instance consider Germany letting in one million refugees last year with little to no vetting. Many liberals would argue it is an act of kindness and of high morality. Many conservatives and right-leaning people would consider it utter stupidity and highly reckless.

For the last eight years many of the concerns of the right-wing and of conservatives/traditionalists have been ignored in the countries of USA and UK and in Europe in general. It's been a great time for the left, SJWs and 21st century liberals. Now it's time for the right to have their turn to balance it out.

This whole Trump-being-elected-is-the-end-of-the-world is a crazy overreaction. So much context has been lost. It's emotions over reason and that's how power-hungry individuals and psychopaths manipulate people. I would say a large portion of the left is in danger of becoming far more extreme and far more public about their Communist/Marxist tendencies: PC language, hate speech, equality of outcome, extreme self-pity, brandishing those that disagree with them racist/sexist/bigoted.

This s___ has been done before in Russia, in China, in Cambodia and every other Communist hellhole around the world. Read the history of these countries, particularly Russia and the Soviet Union. The consequences of Communism and Marxism is the destruction of the individual, the gross inefficiency of government and a destruction of culture. All of which is filtered through the lenses of ideological doctrine and objectionable words. Sound familiar? SJWs, a lot of them, are singing from the same hymn sheet.

Fight racism by allowing racists to express their views and for them to be allowed to be put under actual scrutiny: pros/cons of their sayings. Worked wonders for Nick Griffin and his BNP party in 2009*. Fight racism and extremism by taking away the building blocks which lead to extreme parties: poverty, corruption, cultural decline and decadence.

Ultimately censorship of racism is just another form of prohibition and trying to shove something into a corner and forgetting about it. Prohibition has failed with alcohol and drugs, why should it work with people's views and racism?

*2009 appearance on Question Time destroyed BNP support when Nick Griffin was finally given a public platform to stand on.

[Larks2242 251]

1 hour ago, Ln X said:

There is a very simple reason why Hitler was Hitler- he was full of self-hate and self-pity and failed in life in his early years. He found a scapegoat for his problems- the Jews, and he flourished in a climate of fear, divisiveness, racism and wanting to radically change society for the greater good. Hitler went all the way and pummelled the very depths of evil, all that he hated he had to control.

Not to sidetrack of the topic of the US election but Hitler himself is also a scapegoat, He was not the only person at fault, In fact I believe he only wanted to move the jews until Himmler suggested otherwise.

If anything I think the pig farmer is the non talked about evil one in the whole matter.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

14 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

@MilitantRadical :

1. Scapegoating an ethnic group (Jews vs Muslims and Mexicans)

As an exercise, can you explain how Trump "scapegoated" these groups? Show me where he said these groups were the source of all America's problems and where he singled out these groups as being unilaterally bad. Show me how his statements are factually inaccurate.

Is illegal immigration, an unsecured border, and islamic terrorism not a problem at all? Are there not radical islamists who want to commit acts of terror? Are there not violent and criminal illegal immigrants? Do illegal immigrants not take jobs from American citizens?

From my perspective, the difference between Trump and Hitler is that Hitler painted these ethnic groups with a single brush. They were bad, they were impure, they were evil, and they had to be dealt with. Trump on the other hand has put out a very nuanced position, not attacking ethnic groups, but rather, in the case of illegal immigrants, a legal classification of people who by definition are not supposed to be in the country. And with Muslims, he specifically went after radical Islam, an element or wing of the ideology that does exist and that does cause harm to people. The threat of radical Islam isn't an imaginary thing like the threat of The Jew in 1930ies Germany. Neither radical islam, or illegal immigrants are ethnic groups per-se.

14 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

2. Building walls to keep ethnic groups in their place (Berlin and ghetto walls vs border wall)

Building a wall along your border isn't the same as "keeping ethnic groups in their place". The border already has points where you can cross legally. It is illegal to cross the border without passing through a checkpoint. The wall does not create a division between two countries that doesn't already exist, it just enforces it. Trump also spoke of the wall's "big beautiful door".

15 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

3. Advocating for the arrest of political opponents (also in common with Stalin)

If found guilty of mishandling classified information, or using her position in the state department to enrich the coffers of the Clinton Foundation, should Hillary go to jail?

Which political "opponents", plural, did he advocate for the arrest of?

15 hours ago, OcramsRzr said:

4. Promising to rebuild former glory (fictional Aryan history vs "Make America Great Again")

So anyone who promises to restore the former glory of their country is like Hitler?

Is America's past or present greatness as fictional as "Aryan history"?

12 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

Not to sidetrack of the topic of the US election but Hitler himself is also a scapegoat, He was not the only person at fault, In fact I believe he only wanted to move the jews until Himmler suggested otherwise.

If anything I think the pig farmer is the non talked about evil one in the whole matter.

Hitler dindu nuffin!

[manofcash 8]

As a result of this most recent election and the fact that I happened to be traveling in Europe at the time both before and after election day, talking to people from three different countries and their reaction to the results of the election, I am sad to say for the first time in my life I am absolutely ashamed to be called an American.

[Fantozzi 4,069]

4 hours ago, manofcash said:

As a result of this most recent election and the fact that I happened to be traveling in Europe at the time both before and after election day, talking to people from three different countries and their reaction to the results of the election, I am sad to say for the first time in my life I am absolutely ashamed to be called an American.

Perhaps the slogan "making america great again" is a good one. 

And a (double) question - to cheer you up - could be:

What was it america once was great for? And is it different from that what makes humans - humanity in total - great?

Because me, I always thought, it's good to be part of the good ones to be a member of those who want to build up a better world.

Perhaps it is possible to name the time and the circumstances, america was great?

Me, I'm no american and I'm partially interested in american politics. But I can tell you -all those felings and emotions at the moment - this obsessive lust to ferule the whole world and the shame and powerlessness of loosing ideals - it will pass.

The question - what makes us (if I'm allowed to be a part of humanity even if I'm no american?) great - still can be answered also by you.

 

Or - have only certain people the right to answer this question?

No?

So keep on doing it. No need for shame.

 

 

[Fantozzi 4,069]

Let's make germany great again and throw out all jews of our land so german workers get these jobs , let's invest in our own industry and not in foreign ones ...

... well these were Hitlers slogans for the elections in 1933. 

 

The reason why this comparison is nonsense is another one.

As so many politicians all around the world make election battle with similiar slogans. But still Hitler was the only one to end up to murder 6 million people and to make a country fall into bestiallity.

So it's better to stop this silly comparison.

People with ideology aren't dangerous because they have an ideology.

 

Most of us know when it's time to overcome our own ideology and shake hands again.

 

Most of us know. And that's the important thing.

 

How the winner behaves on the looser - that's the important thing. That shows if he will be able to keep up those few principles which are more important than politics.

But if you hold those principles for politics and your credo is to overbeat these principles for your ideology to be successfull - which means also to loose respect for human beeings that aren't like you - then you open the doors for tyranny.

 

Trump may have given the impression of beeing ruthless in power games. But there is no sign he wants to put a tyranny. I don't know. Shure. But those fantasies 'let's drain the swamp' ... this was election battle. Just to stimulate the lust of the lower classes. To promise some kind of 'revolution' against some kind of 'authority'.

That what people call 'swamp' he will just replace with another type of swamp. It will be his own swamp. People loyal to him getting privileges and so on.

But there are logical reasons why this swamp can't be drained. Let's say - to drain it you would have to destroy the political system too. It's impossible to make politics without making politics. You can't have both, a stable political system and no political elite. Without a political elite you'll get instability. You have to build up specialists for this and that to be competitive. 

It's like soccer. Shure every layman thinks he can do a better job on training the team.

Shure. It seems so. Always. And those soccer team managers they are a swamp. Earn so much money for doing nothing.

Those prejudices against relative closed circles are as old as the world. They are always suspect. And non-politicians are better politicians. And non-teachers are better teachers. And non-journalists are always better journalists.

And so on.

And non-dentists ...

... well, okay, let's make an exception. Let's trust our dentists more than our politicians. Let's not vote a layman for our next dentist. Why? Because it's logical. Isn't it?

 

[APSMS 1,893]

2 hours ago, Fantozzi said:

Let's make germany great again and throw out all jews of our land so german workers get these jobs , let's invest in our own industry and not in foreign ones ...

... well these were Hitlers slogans for the elections in 1933. 

 

The reason why this comparison is nonsense is another one.

As so many politicians all around the world make election battle with similiar slogans. But still Hitler was the only one to end up to murder 6 million people and to make a country fall into bestiallity.

Let's consider that Jews in Germany were actually German. They were German Jews. Trump has not called to deport Mexicans, nor has he called to deport Mexican Americans or Americans who follow Islam (Muslim-Americans is a misnomer, since Islam is neither an ethnicity nor a nationality, as the wars in the Middle East will confirm).

Trump has called to deport illegal residents of America, whose illegality was defined long before he entered the political stage; in fact, their presence and illegal status was first brought to serious public attention during the Clinton Presidency. So who is Hitler here? No one, which is the right answer. Hillary Clinton herself, in a debate with Bernie Sanders, stated that we are a nation of laws (she was defending the Dodd Frank legislation, which frankly I think is a joke). If we are a nation of laws, these are the current ones. Either they have broken the laws or they haven't. Obama for all his grandstanding did not change the laws to something different, that they might not be lawbreakers, and in fact deported more illegal aliens than any other president in history, and that includes Andrew Jackson (depending on how you want to think he viewed the Cherokee nation, not that they were actually illegal--I hope that was clear). Who is the hypocrite?

On 11/17/2016 at 4:33 PM, Odainsaker said:

I did, however, have a fascinating discussion with a co-worker, who admitted that he had first supported Bernie Sanders, but had ultimately voted for Trump as a youthfully giggling protest against Clinton and "The Establishment."  He figured that the toxic Trump would certainly lose and that the rigged establishment system had already ensured corrupt Clinton's inevitable victory, therefore his protest vote would do no actual harm and he could then live with his conscience under a Clinton presidency.  He did not reckon that the rigged system may not be rigged the way he thought it was or that Trump might actually win, and now he is horrified that his most unthinkable outcome has come to pass of having to live with his conscience under a Trump presidency.  Foolish spite led him to vote for someone he least wanted, and now he is seriously worried that his college financial aid may dry up, his dual-citizenship with Mexico will get him deported, and that even a shooting war sparked by whiplashing jingoism is on the horizon.  Bernie or Bust...well, congrats, this is bust!

Here's a post from an atheistic website (so, generally speaking, one which I would disagree with on innumerable counts, and generally not read). Admittedly I came across it searching for something entirely unrelated, but it fits really well. Also, it was written in May 2016, so long before the election. I have highlighted some pertinent bits.

Quote

So here's my prediction:

If Hillary Clinton loses the general election to Donald Trump, an outcome that is far from certain but one which seems more likely by the day, media pundits and Clinton supporters will place the blame at the feet of Bernie Sanders. They will insist that he stayed in the race too long, turned his supporters against Clinton (or at least failed to prevent them from turning against Clinton), and handed the election to Trump. They will blame Sanders in the same way many of them still blame Ralph Nader. And they will blame anyone who does not end up voting for Clinton as having elected Trump, regardless of who these voters supported.

I think this is a fairly safe prediction. After all, the blaming of Sanders has already started. The Democratic establishment is already whining about how it is time for him to drop out of the race and endorse Clinton. His continued presence is already being spun as harming Clinton's chances in the general election. Those of us who have expressed reservations about voting for Clinton are already being asked why we want to see Trump as president.

Sure, I guess your friend has to live with the fact that he voted for Trump, for whatever that's worth considering you live in a red state, but deportation? Assuming that he is a legal resident (as his dual citizenship, which IIRC isn't actually officially recognized by the US government, in which case he would be only an American citizenship), and that his citizenship was acquired legally (and I have no reason to think otherwise, or you wouldn't bring it up), then per American law he is an American citizen. Trump repeatedly is only on about illegal aliens. The whole anti-Mexican persuasion is because most Mexicans/Mexican-Americans are offended by this stance, which is why he claimed that the judge was not impartial, much the same way a gay federal judge ruling on a state law in a federal court (but not living in the affected state) would be hard pressed to rule fairly on the legality of the law, since he would view one side as being inherently wrong (typically, but not always; I should avoid generalizations but hopefully you can see the reasoning here. The same would apply to a Christian or atheist judge in similar circumstances, as well as any law affecting a group of people of which the presiding judge is a member. If there was a law against model trains, and the judge was a major member of a model railroading club it would be safe to assume that he would enter the case being biased, even if would not have to give up his model railroading as a result of an unfavorable ruling).

So the whole thing seems overblown. Trump is not trying to rewrite any laws (yet). Most of his campaign was based on enforcing existing laws, which haven't been changed by the democrats and which are being willfully ignored by many that oppose the laws. Is that how our nation works? We ignore laws we find unfair? I think that this is actually a good thing (any law that required me to deny my religion would find itself completely and utterly ignored) but this must go both ways. Am I required to service customers which I detest? There is a difference between legal institutions supporting segregation and individual businesses choosing to do so, at the peril of their customer base (which can choose to abandon segregated restaurants and businesses). Schools should not be segregated, but I don't think they should be forcibly integrated either; any time you force anything you can expect backlash, and unspoken sentiment is not something which lends itself to settling soon.

We've likened anything which expresses the least of disdain for "another culture" or "people" as racist, yet we continue to talk about WASPs (which, ironically I am not) as though they're the only source of problems in the world. The term is intended to end all discussion, rather than deal with the realities of the situation. Most black people I have talked to are actually against gun control as proposed by the democrats, because they see it as a way for them to have their rights stolen from them, their one last form of defense against oppression snatched away in the name of "unfit for operation." These were all, or so they told me, Trump voters (who voted for Obama) for this very issue, not because they liked Trump, but because a defense of this basic right was considered by them as more important than an Social Justice agenda. Are these blacks and Mexicans racist, because they voted for Trump? Racist against who? Fellow Mexicans? Is it now racist to find law breakers unlikable?

If you ask me, the biggest creator of illegal immigration is NAFTA; American farm products can be sold in Mexico cheaper than most Mexicans can grow it, putting most Mexican farm laborers out of work. You don't have to believe me; NPR and the NYTimes are the people putting this stuff out. So actually railing against NAFTA and other Free-trade agreements is in-line with Trump's overarching rhetoric to restore America's borders and end both illegal immigration as well as job outflow from America.

I think we forget that the US is still the world's biggest economy (to our own detriment) as well as the 3rd largest nation by population. The US is absolutely huge, which most Americans don't realize. Yes, tariffs would hurt free trade and exports, but consider that tariffs and other limitations are already why a majority of Japanese, Korean, and German auto manufacturers operate large auto plants within US borders to escape extra fees. Honda, Toyota, and Nissan maintain large assembly plants where Japanese made parts are assembled into finished cars to escape import fees and excise taxes, as well as to cut down on shipping costs. The US does the same in other countries to escape similar taxation and fees.

Is it so bad to ask that we pay more for products, if we can also maintain a higher standard of living? America has some of the cheapest electronics anywhere in the world, and this includes Japan, China, and Korea where most of these electronics are made, yet America also has some of the highest poverty levels of any developed nation. Protectionism can be a bad thing, but I would argue that this is coming from the standpoint that unfettered growth is the only indicator of success. If global warming and environmentalism has taught us anything, it's that a society based on unlimited growth in a finite world is destined to fail, and will bring the world down with it. Can't America manage to support itself on it's own domestic economy? Will I care if the CEOs are reduced to their pre-91 salaries?

In the 1950s the average CEO made 10 times the average wage in their company. Today it's closer to 100 times that amount. The world was smaller in 1950, the market was mostly domestic. Yet America seemed to do OK (well, wars notwithstanding, most of which were optional and due to poor political choices).

How sad will you be if CEO salaries drop to historical lows and quarterly profits get cut in half if it puts America back to work? Will Trump put Americans back to work? Perhaps, perhaps not, but Clinton wanted more of the same that hasn't been working for the last 8-10 years, and has been slowly gutting the American job market for the last 20 years. Both Sanders and Trump wanted to try something different, and that's why she lost.

  Edited November 19, 2016 by APSMS  
Fixed Quotes

[Fantozzi 4,069]

2 minutes ago, APSMS said:

Let's consider that Jews in Germany were actually German. They were German Jews.

Absolutely.. But by this time thinking was different. They didn't regard jews as members of a religion but as members of a 'race'.

With nazis - who is 'german' was a very different definition to what you are used today. Nazis invented the term 'Volksdeutsche' - which made people 'germans' that weren't germans in a todays definition (austrians f.e.) and on the other hand made people living in germany 'non-germans'.

In the passport of my mother f.e. under 'nationality' there was written 'coequal to germans'.

The nazi racism produced many things hardly understandible today.

 

[APSMS 1,893]

3 minutes ago, Fantozzi said:

Absolutely.. But by this time thinking was different. They didn't regard jews as members of a religion but as members of a 'race'.

Well, it's certainly an ethnicity. Just ask half of Hollywood, most of whom are not practicing Jews, but who do consider themselves "Jewish."

My point was that the Nazis invented these terms, and redefined the structure, but Trump has not redefined anything. He's used existing laws which were established by both Democrats and Republicans to define what it means to be an illegal immigrant. It happens that most of the 12 million in America are Mexican, but Chinese (Asian, but who's running from Japan or SK?), Central American, and Middle Eastern would fall under this category as well (can't think of too many illegal European immigrants, but they'd be covered under this definition as well).

[Fantozzi 4,069]

43 minutes ago, APSMS said:

but Trump has not redefined anything.

I share this opinion. To compare Trump with Hitler is tasteless and - imo - shows only that people lost sense for reality.  Or maybe they talk about things they don't know.

 

 

43 minutes ago, APSMS said:

Well, it's certainly an ethnicity.

I'm not shure if you try to make jokes on me.

Do you know what the word ethnicity means? And what the word race means?

It's like I say 'potatoes are no fruits'. And you reply - yes but they are sold in supermarkets too.

What kind of conversation is this?

Shure they are an ethnicity.

What does this mean regarding the fact that they are no race?

 

 

[GenoSmith 1]

On ‎2016‎-‎11‎-‎12 at 1:56 PM, MilitantRadical said:

In what way did Trump attack the judiciary?

Trump just said he wouldn't preemptively waive his right to contest the election results. Perfectly legal and normal.

 

Perfectly legal and normal?

Which is why no presidential candidate in the history of the Untied States had ever previously suggested such a thing. But yup it's perfectly normal for one to start doing it now. lol

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

For God's sake... Obama and his administration have deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants between 2009 and 2016, where is the condemnation of Obama for these deportations? Trump wants to expedite matters and starting with criminals is a good place to start.

And why are so many Mexicans wanting to leave Mexico? Perhaps because it is so corrupt and overrun with drug cartels... And why are the drug cartels in business? Because a good chunk of the USA uses illegal drugs.

Last year almost 17000 Mexicans were murdered, how many more were killed by the cartels, and the figures were not reported, is anyone's guess. This is a country almost as violent as Afghanistan and Iraq; so I can understand why so many Republicans want tighter border controls to minimise the violence which spills over north of the Mexican border.

I wonder... How many of the anti-Trump protesters, most of them students, have taken illegal drugs and thus indirectly contributed to the illegal immigration.

This is why cold, hard analysis and thinking about the consequences of ones actions is so important

[APSMS 1,893]

I mean they self-define as distinct, even when they are generally considered to be part of another nationality or ethnicity. Mexican Jews, German Jews, African/Ethiopian Jews etc. This goes for non-practicing Jews as well as religious ones, though admittedly Jews have become significantly less religious in the last 100 years than they were previously, but this goes for all religions or religious cultures; increasing secularization in the modern era.

It's what made Jews so easy to identify in Germany during the Nazi period, and this was particularly sad because Germany had some of the best Jewish integration prior to the Nazi regime (ghettos existed but were not strict like in Warsaw or other parts of Europe).

It was not a joke, just a point that they are distinct. Race is a loose definition that has little meaning in modern terms, which is why its use is increasingly confusing. There is no such thing as a black race; ethnicity is more of a cultural reference, though, although I don't think it would really be correct to say that you were ethnically black either. Modernism typically ends up confusing these issues, and I unfortunately do not pay enough attention to the PC descriptions of these terms to make an appropriate argument/statement about them (for or against, or in-between).

[Fantozzi 4,069]

1 hour ago, Ln X said:

This is why cold, hard analysis and thinking about the consequences of ones actions is so important

Two monks were regarding a flag.

The first monk said: "The flag is moving."

The second monk said: "No. The wind moves the flag."

But as they were debating the master went by, lifted his head towards them and said: "Wether the wind nor the flag is moving. It's your hearts that are moved."

 

(sorry don't know the origin of this story, all I know it's chinese and about 800 years old)

[Larks2242 251]

Looking at all the stuff for sale this year has been entertaining but I must say, This one is quite the purchase.

 

[APSMS 1,893]

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/

An interesting article by David Wong (of John Dies at the End fame). Outlines a number of points that illustrate why the reality is not what the liberals say it is, even though they're kind of right.

Also, Michael Moore predicted Trump's victory for the same reason; Democratic rhetoric did not include the working class voters who have been left behind by the "economic recovery" that America is mythically experiencing.

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 11/19/2016 at 7:33 PM, GenoSmith said:

Perfectly legal and normal?

Which is why no presidential candidate in the history of the Untied States had ever previously suggested such a thing. But yup it's perfectly normal for one to start doing it now. lol

Within the norms of the legal framework of the electoral process. Happy?

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 11/19/2016 at 11:36 AM, manofcash said:

As a result of this most recent election and the fact that I happened to be traveling in Europe at the time both before and after election day, talking to people from three different countries and their reaction to the results of the election, I am sad to say for the first time in my life I am absolutely ashamed to be called an American.

You should be proud.

America just showed it still has the ability to think differently and to surprise you. Globalist corporatism was defeated by independent nationalism. They said Hillary's election would be historic by virtue of the fact that she's a woman, but Trumps victory is even more historic.

For the first time in a very long time, an outsider, with every establishment stacked against him, the media, big oil, wall street, big pharma, big banks, etc, managed to win. The stagnant political culture and dead end of social justice progressivism has been dealt a blow, and that is actually a good thing.

Most people in Europe are too brainwashed by their state-run, left-leaning media, to get it. They don't, for the most part, understand America, its laws, or its people. During the American Revolution, Europe looked on aghast at the chaos of the birth of a Republic, but America won and blazed a trail of freedom that spread across the world igniting revolutions (intellectual or violent) in other countries. Trump is a mini version of that. He's showed us that the Kings, or Oligarchs, can be defeated if you have the will and if you have a message.

Old media has been fractured, and the birth of a new class of independent journalist/bloggers on social media has occurred. These are good things. Even if you don't agree with his policies, or his style of speaking, or the content of his speeches, you should recognize his accomplishment as positive.

Hillary was going to be Queen, the establishment wanted it so badly, and they gave her every advantage possible, and she still lost - that's amazing! Be proud that America isn't conformist, that Americans can see through the echo-chamber of the elites, can see through the lies propagated by the mainstream media, and can still exercise their rights in an election - regardless of who wins.

[manofcash 8]

56 minutes ago, MilitantRadical said:

You should be proud.

America just showed it still has the ability to think differently and to surprise you. Globalist corporatism was defeated by independent nationalism. They said Hillary's election would be historic by virtue of the fact that she's a woman, but Trumps victory is even more historic.

For the first time in a very long time, an outsider, with every establishment stacked against him, the media, big oil, wall street, big pharma, big banks, etc, managed to win. The stagnant political culture and dead end of social justice progressivism has been dealt a blow, and that is actually a good thing.

Most people in Europe are too brainwashed by their state-run, left-leaning media, to get it. They don't, for the most part, understand America, its laws, or its people. During the American Revolution, Europe looked on aghast at the chaos of the birth of a Republic, but America won and blazed a trail of freedom that spread across the world igniting revolutions (intellectual or violent) in other countries. Trump is a mini version of that. He's showed us that the Kings, or Oligarchs, can be defeated if you have the will and if you have a message.

Old media has been fractured, and the birth of a new class of independent journalist/bloggers on social media has occurred. These are good things. Even if you don't agree with his policies, or his style of speaking, or the content of his speeches, you should recognize his accomplishment as positive.

Hillary was going to be Queen, the establishment wanted it so badly, and they gave her every advantage possible, and she still lost - that's amazing! Be proud that America isn't conformist, that Americans can see through the echo-chamber of the elites, can see through the lies propagated by the mainstream media, and can still exercise their rights in an election - regardless of who wins.

You are absolutely right about Hillary and I agree with you about a lot of the other points you bring up but Trump is still the worse possible choice we could have gotten as a presidential candidate. If anyone else but Hillary had run against him I really don't think he would have won. She was THE worst possible candidate to run for the presidency due to her secretiveness, underhanded methods, lack of trust and other baggage she has accumulated over the years.

As I said to everyone when she first announced she was going to run for the presidency, "right idea, wrong woman".

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

57 minutes ago, manofcash said:

You are absolutely right about Hillary and I agree with you about a lot of the other points you bring up but Trump is still the worse possible choice we could have gotten as a presidential candidate. If anyone else but Hillary had run against him I really don't think he would have won. She was THE worst possible candidate to run for the presidency due to her secretiveness, underhanded methods, lack of trust and other baggage she has accumulated over the years.

As I said to everyone when she first announced she was going to run for the presidency, "right idea, wrong woman".

Well we'll see how his Presidency plays out.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/20/donald-trump-protests-economy-opposition

The Donald Trump protests continue...

One of the comments from the protesters, Kevin Zeese, in that article really grabbed my attention: “You’re going to see him funnel money to the top, trillions of dollars to the top, and most people’s lives getting worse. You’re going to see healthcare go out of control. People who voted for him on economic issues are going to realise they were bamboozled by a salesman.”

Funny because I thought Obama, and his administration, already did that with banking bailouts, giving the Federal Reserve free reign to prop up banks, Obamacare, 46.5 million people on foodstamps, adding 9 trillion dollars of US government debt. What else... Oh yes... The War on Terror has somehow morphed into this Muslim World War. Oh yeah... Now there are new laws which will force the government to bail out banks for derivative losses, and there are ten of trillions of dollars worth of derivatives.

And when that goes wrong who pays for it? The taxpayer of course and government services due to austerity. Obama helped to solidify To Big To Fail. Just think about that phrase; a bank, or company, is more important than the law and the country. And people wonder where the plutocracy came from.

And here's another thing; how come race relations have plummeted during Obama's two terms as president? You would think the first black man as president would heal some of the long-festering wounds and issues facing African Americans: the poverty, the inner-city crime and the lack of opportunity. Instead he virtually ignored black-on-black violence, constantly had that passive-aggressive attitude when talking about blacks being killed by cops which projected a lack of respect for the authorities. And what was the answer to poverty and poor opportunities? More government wealthfare and handouts.

The Democrat Party deliberately seems to ignore the two biggest issues plaguing African-Americans in the cities: black-on-black violence and poor economic prospects. Maybe they are terrified of a larger black middle class who don't need handouts, the government or the Democrats in their lives. A bigger black middle class will mean less poverty and less black-on-black violence. 

The condemnation from some liberals about Hispanics and blacks voting for Trump is outrageous. Smacks of: you can only vote for us because we know what is best for you. That condescending attitude is despicable, it's like they treating these ethnic groups as pets. Personally, I think it's great that these groups who were once sorely oppressed can vote any way they like to decide the country's future.

Yes some blacks and some Hispanics will vote Republican and have voted for Trump. Get over it and be grateful for the choice these folks made.

///

To be fair, what Zeese said next was right on the money.

“The Democratic party has to choose between the Wall Street big donor interests and their voters. They conflict,” he said. “They have to put forward economic policies that show they’ve really listened, that they got the message from this election. We get it. It’s the economy, stupid, and it’s not working for most Americans.”

Zeese said the party was not helped in its efforts to win back support by what was perceived in parts of the US as prosperous liberals smearing economically struggling voters for their support of Trump.

“If you look at the states that essentially decided the election – Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Indiana – they’re all states that have voted for Obama in the past. These are not racist voters. They voted for the first African American president. They did so because of economic issues,” he said. “We need to unite around issues. Identity politics gets in the way of that. Democrats make a mistake playing that card. It means a lots of white working class [people] whose interests are not being represented. There are legitimate issues around race and injustice, women and injustice, but they have to be put into the context of an economy that doesn’t work for most people in United States.”

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 2016-11-13 at 8:44 PM, MushyMushy said:

The counting apparently isn't actually done, and that is in primarily Democratic-leaning states like CA and WA, so the NY Times is now predicting she may end up with a lead of 2,000,000 votes.

Looks like she has that lead in the popular vote now. People are pushing for recounts in some counties. I say do it, then we'll find out Hillary cheated, and still lost.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/election-vote-recount-clinton-stein-1.3865287

 

[Blackhawke51 0]

lol so i was tanking the mayor rating and people (quite literally) and i was all like "pshhh do riots even happen?" and i uhh...

 

12 riots happened, so, plz dont underestimate the power of pissed offf people

[CaptCity 4,918]

We're going to close this topic out since it deals with an event from the distant past, and the most recent post was off topic. Please feel free to post in newer threads that discuss relevant topics.

Thanks.