SURVEY: Did the US elect the right person as President?

[ClutchClark]

38 minutes ago, Skywalker69 said:

Donald Trump will never “drain the swamp”: He’s already staffing his transition team with GOP insiders, Wall Street lobbyists.

Trump is ready to shake up Washington with insiders like Trent Lott and Jamie Dimon.

 

http://www.salon.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-will-never-drain-the-swamp-hes-already-staffing-his-transition-team-with-gop-insiders-wall-street-lobbyists/

 

It sure is funny how these threads are all full of hillary supporters giving us forecasts of exactly how the future is going to unfold.

 

If they are so good at forecasting the future then why couldnmt they see the election going to Trump and both houses of Congress going Republican ?

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

It sure is funny how these threads are all full of hillary supporters giving us forecasts of exactly how the future is going to unfold.

 

If they are so good at forecasting the future then why couldnmt they see the election going to Trump and both houses of Congress going Republican ?

 

The Trump haters were whining about how Trump would not accept the results of the the election and instead it is them out commuting mayhem. I bet they did not see that in their crystal balls.

[WaywardWind]

1 hour ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Political safeguards are new to Trump so I would guess your warning has some merit.

 

I am sure his attorneys and accountants will inform him of how politicians have been skirting this requirement for decades...they are politicians, after all.

 

They make laws, they do not follow them.

 

Is Trump the right politician? 

 

Well...was hillary honestly going to put the Clinton Foundation into a blind trust? Not on your life  ;-)

She wouldn't have needed to do so, as she receives no income from her association with the Foundation and never has. She is one of the unpaid directors, as are both Bill and Chelsea Clinton.

[WaywardWind]

22 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

It sure is funny how these threads are all full of hillary supporters giving us forecasts of exactly how the future is going to unfold.

 

If they are so good at forecasting the future then why couldnmt they see the election going to Trump and both houses of Congress going Republican ?

There are several reasons, primary among which are the bogus late-arriving Comey scandal over emails, and the fact that voters who were polled ahead of the election lied to the pollsters because they were ashamed to say that they would be voting for Trump.  The Trump campaign calls them "shy supporters." I would use a different adjective.

[ClutchClark]

5 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

She wouldn't have needed to do so, as she receives no income from her association with the Foundation and never has. She is one of the unpaid directors, as are both Bill and Chelsea Clinton.

 

Thanks for this insight but wouldn't there be some concern that large contributions could result in an appearance of foul play?

Edited November 12, 2016 by ClutchClark

[Ulysses G.]

1 minute ago, WaywardWind said:

There are several reasons, primary among which are the bogus late-arriving Comey scandal over emails, and the fact that voters who were polled ahead of the election lied to the pollsters because they were ashamed to say that they would be voting for Trump.

 

Ashamed because the dishonest MSM demonized the man to an insane degree. The liberal press should be shunned for what they have done.

 

[WaywardWind]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Ashamed because the dishonest MSM demonized the man to an insane degree. The liberal press should be shunned for what they have done.

 

Demonized him by broadcasting his own words, and publicizing his own actions?

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, WaywardWind said:

Demonized him by broadcasting his own words, and publicizing his own actions?

 

If they had only stopped there but they did not.

 

There are many underhanded ways the press can manipulate its readership. For example, the stories it chooses.

 

The MSM used several reporting techniques to push their bias. 

[Ulysses G.]

Just now, WaywardWind said:

Demonized him by broadcasting his own words, and publicizing his own actions?

 

Demonized by deceipt, spin, distortion and blatant lies.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/658877?keywords=trump-biggest-media-lies&year=2015&month=07&date=25&id=658877&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Wire&oref=com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/26/trump-lies-articles-come-weekend-clinton-campaign-course/

 

 

[WaywardWind]

18 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Thanks for this insight but wouldn't there be some concern that large contributions could result in an appearance of foul play?

Your initial question related to whether Hillary Clinton would have put the Foundation into a blind trust if elected, and I indicated that it would not be necessary.

 

As far as contributions to the Clinton Foundation giving an appearance of "foul play", I fail to see the connection. Were contributions made in order to curry favor with Clinton when she was SoS? Likely, but without evidence of an unwarranted quid pro quo by her, there is no "foul play."

 

Most large contributions, whether to a politician, a political party, or an organization, carry an underlying desire to gain access. Nothing illegal about that, unless actions are taken as a direct result which benefit the donor to the detriment of the responsibilities of the recipient. Contributions to the Clinton Foundation went directly to the support of their worthy programs, and not a dime went to any of the Clintons. Both of the major charity rating organizations have examined the foundation and found it to be sterling in its programs and administration.

 

 

[WaywardWind]

16 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Demonized by deceipt, spin, distortion and blatant lies.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/658877?keywords=trump-biggest-media-lies&year=2015&month=07&date=25&id=658877&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Wire&oref=com.google.android.googlequicksearchbox

 

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/09/26/trump-lies-articles-come-weekend-clinton-campaign-course/

 

 

If those are the sources upon which you rely to form your opinions, then I suspect that there is too wide a gulf between your opinions and mine to form the basis for continued civil discussion.

[Ulysses G.]

14 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

If those are the sources upon which you rely to form your opinions, then I suspect that there is too wide a gulf between your opinions and mine to form the basis for continued civil discussion.

 

Do you really think the MSM is going to do a expose on their dishonest reporting? These are pretty accurate conservative sources.

 

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/faux-outrage-lies-and-more-media-bias-against-trump/

 

http://www.westernjournalism.com/top-50-examples-liberal-media-bias/

Edited November 13, 2016 by Ulysses G.

[optad]

Not sure if this has been asked of more knowledgeable others, 

 

But does the forum think Trump will attend to campaign financing and electoral funding from lobbyists. Get this into some kind of respectable balance whatever that is.

 

I understand Trump will role back many of his licentious promises, this one however has a definite profile about his early rise and also indicative of some the forces which derailed better transparency of what actually happened. It has been mooted for so long too. 

 

CAn it be done..

[ClutchClark]

12 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

Your initial question related to whether Hillary Clinton would have put the Foundation into a blind trust if elected, and I indicated that it would not be necessary.

 

As far as contributions to the Clinton Foundation giving an appearance of "foul play", I fail to see the connection. Were contributions made in order to curry favor with Clinton when she was SoS? Likely, but without evidence of an unwarranted quid pro quo by her, there is no "foul play."

 

Most large contributions, whether to a politician, a political party, or an organization, carry an underlying desire to gain access. Nothing illegal about that, unless actions are taken as a direct result which benefit the donor to the detriment of the responsibilities of the recipient. Contributions to the Clinton Foundation went directly to the support of their worthy programs, and not a dime went to any of the Clintons. Both of the major charity rating organizations have examined the foundation and found it to be sterling in its programs and administration.

 

 

 

I felt you had answered the first question straight away.

 

The reason for a blind trust is obvious to all but it would seem the underlying principles for its use would be of equal concern for an organization like the Clinton Foundation.

 

Legislation created and pursued to benefit the politician, lawmaker, et al.

 

You are not suggesting that a large contribution to the Clinton Foundation  would not create an equal temptation to manipulate a vote.

 

Ah...but that is the very nature of lobbying, is it not?

 

Now that I think about it, there really is no reasonable basis for investments to be placed in a blind trust as long as we allow the lobby efforts we condone.

 

[mania]

48 minutes ago, WaywardWind said:

and the fact that voters who were polled ahead of the election lied to the pollsters because they were ashamed to say that they would be voting for Trump. 

 Ever occur to you the pollsters chose themselves what groups to poll to make their polls look strong and discourage many from even trying/bothering to vote?

 

Far fetched? Sure but you folks seem to thrive on far fetched

 

Lastly none asked/polled me.....but if they did I would say think of it like an Xmas gift....wait for the 9th to get it........Boy see the look on their faces when they got it ?

Edited November 13, 2016 by mania

[ClutchClark]

A

9 minutes ago, optad said:

Not sure if this has been asked of more knowledgeable others, 

 

But does the forum think Trump will attend to campaign financing and electoral funding from lobbyists. Get this into some kind of respectable balance whatever that is.

 

I understand Trump will role back many of his licentious promises, this one however has a definite profile about his early rise and also indicative of some the forces which derailed better transparency of what actually happened. It has been mooted for so long too. 

 

CAn it be done..

 

I would certainly like to see campaign finance reform and its quite interesting that Trump prevailed even though his war chest was a small fraction of hillarys.

 

But unless it were possible for Trump to use an obana style executive order, I don't see any career politician voting for reform.

 

This will be one of the negotiations sacrificed as Trump tries to get the GOP politicians onboard his plan.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[optad]

^^@CC/

I figured that even if bernie won this would still be difficult. Actually, I recall a west wing episode  referring to this, and despite all the altruism in that series, sorkin and co conceded [ in storyline], that it was just to full of special interests to ever happen.

 

We'll see but a great shame on the integrity of process..

[ClutchClark]

8 minutes ago, optad said:

^^@CC/

I figured that even if bernie won this would still be difficult. Actually, I recall a west wing episode  referring to this, and despite all the altruism in that series, sorkin and co conceded [ in storyline], that it was just to full of special interests to ever happen.

 

We'll see but a great shame on the integrity of process..

 

To tie this into the topic,  I think there is a better chance of campaign finance reform under Trump than there would have been under Hillary.

 

That old girl relies heavily on these types of financial payoffs and has cultivated quite a contributer list over at her Foundation.

 

oOcourse, none of those gifters expect any reciprocity.

 

Wink.

Edited November 13, 2016 by ClutchClark

[optad]

Thanks for the realignment CC. That was the appeal of Bernie. I'd admired his intense focus of that aspect of the political system. The fact that Hillary never adopted his pov was telling. I hoped she would carry forth many more of his platforms. Whether you liked Sanders policies you had you to the genuineness of his vim and vigor on policy for the common weal.

 

Trump made much of this pre nomination re his own money. This was always going to change with the sums required upon nomination.

 

Was he a preferential president in my view? Despite a leaning left, I cannot reconcile the appalling abandonment of the democrats traditional base for a collection of minority povs. The bigger picture was left swinging in a series of negative choices for potus by Hillary, and sundry lesser issues ie gender topicality and ethnic basis without respecting the electorates economic stake in current affairs. Real wages are less than 15 years ago if not holding mortgage free property.

 

Trump fairly tapped in this and to that extent his very nomination will make aloof decision makers more responsible. i hope. A cabinet full of his family might easily make me retract that comment though.

 

I am just glad i can vicariously learn form all this.

[Shawn0000]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

The Trump haters were whining about how Trump would not accept the results of the the election and instead it is them out commuting mayhem. I bet they did not see that in their crystal balls.

 

True, but tell me, how does it feel to have elected a president that so many of your fellow country men dislike so much that they have taken to the streets?  Has a president ever had such a divisive campaign to cause such a reaction before?  Will this divisiveness be good for America?

[Ulysses G.]

2 minutes ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

True, but tell me, how does it feel to have elected a president that so many of your fellow country men dislike so much that they have taken to the streets?  Has a president ever had such a divisive campaign to cause such a reaction before?  Will this divisiveness be good for America?

 

Traditional America would have been just as disappointed if Hillary had wom. However, they would not have started riots and gone around attacking her supporters. That is the difference between conservatives and liberals.

 

[Shawn0000]

1 minute ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Traditional America would have been just as disappointed if Hillary had wom. However, they would not have started riots and gone around attacking her supporters. That is the difference between conservatives and liberals.

 

 

The questions were, how does it feel, has this ever happened before and is this good for America?  Nothing to do with Hillary nor Trump supporters.

[Gary A]

I think Trump is going to have the most talented cabinet of most any other president. He is not going to fall in the trap of making sure that he is smarter than anyone who works for him. His main talent is picking very talented people to advise him and actually run his businesses. He will do the same for his presidency. He readily admits that he needs all the help he can get. He will be open to compromise. He knows that he is not going to get everything he wants. Obama was too stubborn to listen to anyone. His arrogance put the country in the horrible shape it is in now. Time will tell but I am optimistic for the first time in many years.

[Shawn0000]

32 minutes ago, Gary A said:

I think Trump is going to have the most talented cabinet of most any other president. He is not going to fall in the trap of making sure that he is smarter than anyone who works for him. His main talent is picking very talented people to advise him and actually run his businesses. He will do the same for his presidency. He readily admits that he needs all the help he can get. He will be open to compromise. He knows that he is not going to get everything he wants. Obama was too stubborn to listen to anyone. His arrogance put the country in the horrible shape it is in now. Time will tell but I am optimistic for the first time in many years.

 

By "all the help he can get" do you think he was referring to the billion dollar loan deferment and bailouts he received on his personal projects?  I find it incredible that people actually think this guy who sold off and then reinvested his fathers investments for a return lower than they would have achieved by now while deferring on his loans, going bankrupt and being bailed out at the tax payers expense is some kind of success story.  Perhaps didn't pick the most talented advisors back then, or maybe he fell into the trap of thinking he was smarter than them, whichever it was some serious mistakes were made.

[chicowoodduck]

The home vote total says it all....NO!! ??

[rickb]

In my opinion the US did elect the right person as President.  Mr. Trump is a successful businessman and an outsider to the political system.  I think that is exactly what the USA needs now after suffering so many years with "big government."  I've reviewed his Initial 100 Days Plan and it makes very good sense.  I expect that some of his campaign promises will be altered some when they become reality.  He may not repeal Obamacare completely.  But I expect he will make numerous improvements to the Affordable Care Act that will help the American people.  So who should, in the end, care whether he repeals and replaces it, versus simply improving on it.  Likewise, I expect the same with many of his other ideas.  It is time for the American people to unite behind their new leader and give him a chance.  If, in four years, he proves to be the wrong person for the position, then the democratic process will elect a different person.  I'm personally hoping he stays for eight years as that would mean that he has done good for the country, and hopefully for the world.

[pgrahmm]

On 11/12/2016 at 10:33 AM, lopburi3 said:

Regardless of our opinion on who should win; this was actually not democracy as the person with the most votes did not get elected.   That our way - and believe was justified at the time - but today it becomes a liability IMHO as just too hard to try and justify anymore.

Would've been a larger margin if they'd tallied the absentee ballots - but the race was not close enough to require it.....Historically runs 67-70% Republican.....

Edited November 13, 2016 by pgrahmm

[pgrahmm]

2 hours ago, Shawn0000 said:

 

True, but tell me, how does it feel to have elected a president that so many of your fellow country men dislike so much that they have taken to the streets?  Has a president ever had such a divisive campaign to cause such a reaction before?  Will this divisiveness be good for America?

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/11/anti-trump-protests-funded-by-left-wing-charity/

 

They're rioting & inciting - pay for play.....

[zydeco]

13 hours ago, Gary A said:

If the professional welfare families were to make less money, they may decide to go to work. Why would they want to work for less money than they get from welfare? As things are now we need illegals to harvest produce. We still have produce rotting in the fields because no one is willing to harvest it. Fruit and vegetable prices will go up because the farm workers deserve a livable wage. The object is to make it profitable for people working rather than collecting our TOO generous welfare benefits. Hopefully things will change.

 

Guest worker programs in agriculture currently exist.  They go unused because agribusiness does not want to pay even those low wages, preferring to dodge payroll taxes and give only slave level wages.  BTW, I always wondered when I was living in the US how it was possible for me to buy Australian oranges that were cheaper than those grown in the US.  How can this be so when there aren't any Mexican illegals in Australia of any significant number?

[rickb]

12 minutes ago, pgrahmm said:

 

 

Pgrahmm, can you please quote a source for this information?  I can't find anything similar in any news outlet that I've researched.  Everything I read still says that Michigan is not yet decided and that the popular vote is still in favor of HRC.