What went wrong in this year's presidential polls?

[Dtrump]

6 hours ago, Morch said:

 

This is not about what Trump needs, but about what the people need. Trump is not the people, nor did all the people vote for Trump. Further, not even all the people who did vote for Trump would go for such extreme lengths as proposed.

 

IMO, ardent Trump supporters in favor of the above will be disappointed with Trump's actions on that front.

No law says who should be allowed to travel with the President.  It is what Trump needs not what the people/media need.  The people want the truth and CNN and the main media have not been providing that so, serves them right. 

[ClutchClark]

6 hours ago, otherstuff1957 said:

Reading between the lines in this morning's news, the biggest difference between Obamacare and Trumpcare may be the name.

 

 

 

Based on what? A 4-minute soundbite? 

 

Its way too early to see what the Republicans are going to do with Obamacare. 

 

Lets let President-Elect Trump atleast be sworn into office first.

[Jingthing]

6 hours ago, otherstuff1957 said:

Reading between the lines in this morning's news, the biggest difference between Obamacare and Trumpcare may be the name.

 

 

You know, that would be a real trick.

Because in reality it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the preexisting conditions exclusions and NOT have a mandate.

In fact that was originally a REPUBLICAN idea.

Obamacare (which is total crap compared to actual nationalized healthcare) is at it's core a right wing republican program. But republicans hated it because they hate Obama.

Also allowing import of meds (which I used to do by mail order from Canada and then it became illegal) which trump lied about opening up in the campaign (he's a CON MAN, wake up already and face it) will not happen under the cover of protecting U.S. trade. 

 

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You know, that would be a real trick.

Because in reality it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the preexisting conditions exclusions and NOT have a mandate.

In fact that was originally a REPUBLICAN idea.

Obamacare (which is total crap compared to actual nationalized healthcare) is at it's core a right wing republican program. But republicans hated it because they hate Obama.

Also allowing import of meds (which I used to do by mail order from Canada and then it became illegal) which trump lied about opening up in the campaign (he's a CON MAN, wake up already and face it) will not happen under the cover of protecting U.S. trade. 

 

 

So you are now saying that obama co-opted a republican plan for national healthcare? Why? Why do you suggest Obama would do that rather than develop a healthcare plan that he developed? Obviously it was obamas and the democrats plan. In fact, it was passed with zero GOP support. 

 

Your post lacks any logic. 

 

Why did obama stop you from importing your meds from Canada? Why? Or was this an insidious republican secret plan as well? 

 

When your Canadian meds were gone did you by any chance just quit taking the prescription?

[Morch]

2 hours ago, Dtrump said:

No law says who should be allowed to travel with the President.  It is what Trump needs not what the people/media need.  The people want the truth and CNN and the main media have not been providing that so, serves them right. 

 

And no one claimed there was such a law. The media not flying with the president (or president elect, before some sensitive souls will be hurt) is not on par with previous statements on this topic calling to "destroy" and "tear down" the media.

 

With regard to the "serve them right" bit, might be applicable to the media, but still doesn't solve the question of where the public gets his information from. From this angle, it does not serve the people at all.

 

I get that some are angry at "the media", but slogans are not solutions.

[Dtrump]

2 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

And no one claimed there was such a law. The media not flying with the president (or president elect, before some sensitive souls will be hurt) is not on par with previous statements on this topic calling to "destroy" and "tear down" the media.

 

With regard to the "serve them right" bit, might be applicable to the media, but still doesn't solve the question of where the public gets his information from. From this angle, it does not serve the people at all.

 

I get that some are angry at "the media", but slogans are not solutions.

  http://www.breitbart.com/

https://wikileaks.org/

 

Would be a couple of choices choices. 

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, Morch said:

 

And no one claimed there was such a law. The media not flying with the president (or president elect, before some sensitive souls will be hurt) is not on par with previous statements on this topic calling to "destroy" and "tear down" the media.

 

With regard to the "serve them right" bit, might be applicable to the media, but still doesn't solve the question of where the public gets his information from. From this angle, it does not serve the people at all.

 

I get that some are angry at "the media", but slogans are not solutions.

I'm not convinced that the press/media following a politician results in anything other than biased opinion pieces in their media outlets.

 

Far better to judge the results - i.e. what they actually do.  Which IMO is why voters went for Trump - they were sick and tired of the status quo that didn't benefit them at all, and so voted for a 'wild card' that would, at least, shake up the establishment.

[Morch]

7 minutes ago, Dtrump said:

  http://www.breitbart.com/

https://wikileaks.org/

 

Would be a couple of choices choices. 

 

One is an obviously partisan website, exactly the thing you riled against.

The other does not provide news coverage, but releases stolen information. The issues "covered" are partisan as well.

You're simply suggesting the replacement of the current "media" with sources pandering to your own views.

 

Other than that, can't really see Wikileaks reps flying with the president.

 

 

[nausea]

The silent majority is called "silent" for a reason.

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm not convinced that the press/media following a politician results in anything other than biased opinion pieces in their media outlets.

 

Far better to judge the results - i.e. what they actually do.  Which IMO is why voters went for Trump - they were sick and tired of the status quo that didn't benefit them at all, and so voted for a 'wild card' that would, at least, shake up the establishment.

 

May want to read previous posts. The issue of media riding with the president is a non-issue introduced as deflection. The original claims made were that "the media" needs to be "destroyed" or "torn down".

 

Not sure if you meant that coverage of the president should be limited to such times when results are presented. If so, that's more like how things work in Putinland etc.

[dick dasterdly]

13 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm not convinced that the press/media following a politician results in anything other than biased opinion pieces in their media outlets.

 

Far better to judge the results - i.e. what they actually do.  Which IMO is why voters went for Trump - they were sick and tired of the status quo that didn't benefit them at all, and so voted for a 'wild card' that would, at least, shake up the establishment.

 

Just now, Morch said:

 

May want to read previous posts. The issue of media riding with the president is a non-issue introduced as deflection. The original claims made were that "the media" needs to be "destroyed" or "torn down".

 

Not sure if you meant that coverage of the president should be limited to such times when results are presented. If so, that's more like how things work in Putinland etc.

Re. the 2nd para, I didn't mean or imply that - and you know it....

 

Why would you try to twist my post in that way .

[Morch]

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Re. the 2nd para, I didn't mean or imply that - and you know it....

 

Why would you try to twist my post in that way .

 

I didn't twist anything, just no idea what you were on about. How is the media supposed to cover just the results of a president's actions? What falls under "what they actually do"?

[dick dasterdly]

38 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

I'm not convinced that the press/media following a politician results in anything other than biased opinion pieces in their media outlets.

 

Far better to judge the results - i.e. what they actually do.  Which IMO is why voters went for Trump - they were sick and tired of the status quo that didn't benefit them at all, and so voted for a 'wild card' that would, at least, shake up the establishment.

 

25 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

May want to read previous posts. The issue of media riding with the president is a non-issue introduced as deflection. The original claims made were that "the media" needs to be "destroyed" or "torn down".

 

Not sure if you meant that coverage of the president should be limited to such times when results are presented. If so, that's more like how things work in Putinland etc.

 

20 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Re. the 2nd para, I didn't mean or imply that - and you know it....

 

Why would you try to twist my post in that way .

 

11 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

I didn't twist anything, just no idea what you were on about. How is the media supposed to cover just the results of a president's actions? What falls under "what they actually do"?

The clue is in "what they actually do" (i.e. the politicians as made clear in my original post) - but I understand that you think this is a vague term (roll eyes) and prefer to pretend that my post referred to the media.....

[Morch]

8 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

 

The clue is in "what they actually do" (i.e. the politicians as made clear in my original post) - but I understand that you think this is a vague term (roll eyes) and prefer to pretend that my post referred to the media.....

 

No, I got it that you mean the politicians. My question was what falls under "what they (politicians) actually do". In other words, what does it imply for media coverage of the president, the administration and politicians in general. Part of the media's role, supposedly, is to alert and inform the public prior to things actually happening, report about future trends, plans and developments. If a president promises one thing, then does the opposite (or nothing at all) - what should be reported?

[Jingthing]

I posted very near the election that Nate Silver was saying contrarian stuff and that trump had about a 35 percent chance of winning, which I said was really horrifying because that's a significant threat and really not that much lower than a 50 50 coin flip.

Again I don't think all the pollsters were that wrong.

There was a lot of margin of error stuff in the closer race STATE calls ... it just turns out trump won those except for Virginia. 

But I do admit (obviously) that I got caught up in the emotion of the race and acted obnoxiously overconfident a lot in my posts.

But in reality, I was terrified. 

Now the NIGHTMARE is here. 

[dick dasterdly]

14 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

No, I got it that you mean the politicians. My question was what falls under "what they (politicians) actually do". In other words, what does it imply for media coverage of the president, the administration and politicians in general. Part of the media's role, supposedly, is to alert and inform the public prior to things actually happening, report about future trends, plans and developments. If a president promises one thing, then does the opposite (or nothing at all) - what should be reported?

Re. the media reporting - does it matter as its obvious they only report what they want people to believe (other than one or two notable exceptions)?

 

The media will (I expect) still get the same press conferences as previously - when the government says what it wants the press to report .

 

The voters have made it clear that they have had enough of politicians ignoring their (the voters) interests, and consequently voted for the maverick.

 

Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen - but I agree that Trump is unlikely to help the poor or average.  But hope to be proven wrong.

Edited November 12, 2016 by dick dasterdly

[Morch]

1 minute ago, dick dasterdly said:

Re. the media reporting - does it matter as its obvious they only report what they want people to believe (other than one or two notable exceptions)?

 

The media will (I expect) still get the same press conferences as previously - when the government says what it wants the press to report .

 

So basically, no answer at all.

Or rather, the first part expressing nihilistic sentiment, and the second pretty much echoes Putinland.

[dick dasterdly]

14 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Re. the media reporting - does it matter as its obvious they only report what they want people to believe (other than one or two notable exceptions)?

 

The media will (I expect) still get the same press conferences as previously - when the government says what it wants the press to report .

 

The voters have made it clear that they have had enough of politicians ignoring their (the voters) interests, and consequently voted for the maverick.

 

Whether that is good or bad remains to be seen - but I agree that Trump is unlikely to help the poor or average.  But hope to be proven wrong.

 

7 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So basically, no answer at all.

Or rather, the first part expressing nihilistic sentiment, and the second pretty much echoes Putinland.

If that's what you understood from my post - then there is no point in continuing the discussion .

[lannarebirth]

7 hours ago, Jingthing said:

You know, that would be a real trick.

Because in reality it is IMPOSSIBLE to keep the preexisting conditions exclusions and NOT have a mandate.

In fact that was originally a REPUBLICAN idea.

Obamacare (which is total crap compared to actual nationalized healthcare) is at it's core a right wing republican program. But republicans hated it because they hate Obama.

Also allowing import of meds (which I used to do by mail order from Canada and then it became illegal) which trump lied about opening up in the campaign (he's a CON MAN, wake up already and face it) will not happen under the cover of protecting U.S. trade. 

 

 

What's come to be known as Obamacare was first proposed by Nixon. The Democrats shot it down because they "said" they were going to hold out for Universal healthcare instead. Romney adopted the policy in Massachusetts when he was governor and Obama's policy seems closely modeled after that.

 

There's a lesson here and that is we probably would have had Universal healthcare coverage decades ago if the Democrats hadn't obstructed Nixon' better but not best policy proposal. My observations from watching politics is that very little that what occurs happens because one party or the other did something. Most of what occurs are the ramifications stemming from both parties doing nothing.

[Dipterocarp]

Certain suggestions do go back to Nixon, Gingrich and Mass ( a state program ) that are based on personal responsibility. Unfortunately big government programs don't work and there is no Constitutional right to health care. Get a job, join the military,  cover it yourself,  or find a charity hospital.

 

The US is not a small largely homogenized Scandinavian utopia. Frankly we have too many people who just are not able make the rational Life decisions required to allow such a program to exist without massive waste, cost, and outright fraud.

 

Don't pick my pocket to subsidize laziness and poor planning.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2016 by Dipterocarp

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎11‎.‎11‎.‎2016 at 7:59 PM, Morch said:

 

And again, considering people do need access to information - what is the alternative suggested? And further, how can "the media" (a kinda broad term) be "destroyed", and by whom?

 

 

The print media is already being destroyed because not enough people are buying papers. Other than the Trump bias that is probably not a good thing because most tv channels don't do the investigative work that papers do and are all about ratings and ad revenue.

I guess the internet will take over, but probably most information on that is either biased or rubbish.