Trump cruises to Electoral College victory despite protests

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

47 minutes ago, Pimay1 said:

Would you mind translating that into English?

 

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. QED.

 

Nothing more needs to be said.

[hdkane]

On 12/20/2016 at 10:00 AM, oilinki said:

So, when this proofs to be true even by your selected medias, you will condemn it?

hi...i truly thought this was fake news, because it seems to crazy and stupid...the bald eagle donars and such...i was wrong...i found plenty of genuine news sources talking about it...trump backed away from it, basically saying it was his kid's idea...but christ...the idea is so stupid as to just leave one stunned...this isn't a good omen for someone who talked about "draining the swamp"...it's right up there with clinton selling access to the white house lincoln bedroom...one would think that someone in that position would see the obvious idiocy in these notions...i never thought obama was particularly honest, but at least he wasn't stupid...i doubt that trump will finish his first term, if he continues to act so recklessly...

[Gary A]

41 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

 

Quod Erat Demonstrandum. QED.

 

Nothing more needs to be said.

 

You have aptly shown your supreme arrogance. I interpret it as showing your ignorance. You are at least correct is saying nothing more needs to be said.

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

1 minute ago, Gary A said:

 

You have aptly shown your supreme arrogance. I interpret it as showing your ignorance. You are at least correct is saying nothing more needs to be said.

 

Don't worry. You can use a dictionary to find the meaning. Or you can ask and I will explain it to you. For someone who has no use for a 'pseudo-intellectual', you are surely squealing a lot.

 

Please keep wallowing in Trump-land ignorance.

[rabas]

 

His point was about people who do not listen while

1 hour ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

3 hours ago, Gary A said:

 

Many rabid democrats fancy themselves as wordsmiths and think that using big "adult" words will intimidate the deplorables. Trump got a lot of votes because he used words that us deplorables could understand. I would certainly enjoy having a few beers with a man who I can understand rather than a self professed intellectual who talks in circles. You are who you are and any attempt to communicate with you is indeed futile. I have absolutely no use for know it all faux intellectuals. 

 

Celebrate ignorance. Wallow in mis-information. Stay protected in your bubble. Welcome to Trump-land.

 

Blaming the listener for a failure to communicate is the 'creed of the disempowered'. Which is entirely my point about the cliche-ridden rants of the Alt Right.

Wow, what do you get when two wordsmiths collide, one with chocolate and the other with peanut butter?

 

Blaming the listener for a failure to communicate [crash] is the 'creed of the disempowered'.   What were they thinking before the crash? 

 

His point was about people who do not listen while using fancy, cliche ridden language to intimidate others. And he is right.

 

Some good examples of cliches are:

Celebrate ignorance.

Wallow in mis-information.

Stay protected in your bubble.

Welcome to Trump-land.

 

 

[Tawan Dok Krating Daeng]

8 minutes ago, rabas said:

 

His point was about people who do not listen while

Wow, what do you get when two wordsmiths collide, one with chocolate and the other with peanut butter?

 

Blaming the listener for a failure to communicate [crash] is the 'creed of the disempowered'.   What were they thinking before the crash? 

 

His point was about people who do not listen while using fancy, cliche ridden language to intimidate others. And he is right.

 

Some good examples of cliches are:

Celebrate ignorance.

Wallow in mis-information.

Stay protected in your bubble.

Welcome to Trump-land.

 

 

 

You are projecting. If you are intimidated by words, then that is your issue. Don't blame the writer.

 

Intellectual dishonesty is a failure to apply standards of rational evaluation that one is aware of, usually in a self-serving fashion. If one judges others more critically than oneself, that is intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual Dishonesty

wiki.c2.com/?IntellectualDishonesty

 

QED. All over again.

 

[Aggressive]

3 minutes ago, Tawan Dok Krating Daeng said:

QED. All over again.

 

Totally happy with it. 

[Morch]

19 hours ago, Gary A said:

 

Do you actually believe that one man, Donald Trump, could override the entire congress? Why do I mention HRC? She is the reason Trump was elected, so I think it is closely related. Who else can you blame for the election results? Do you think that ridiculous  far left views are good for the country? You may not like Trump but you should have some respect for the office.

 

Under certain conditions, yes - one man can sweep aside a whole lot of taken for granted institutions, liberties and traditions. Not saying this is actually happening at this time, just that the US is not immune, despite contrary opinions prevailing among some. Such things do not have to happen overnight, or without consent, even.

 

So which is it? Did HRC lose the elections or did Trump win them? Seems like either version is deployed, depending on the point posters try to make on a given topic. Saying HRC is to blame for the election results is hardly a compliment for Trump, is it? And as the current topic is about Trump electoral college victory, perhaps more fitting to highlight his supposed merits, rather than going on about his rival's faults (which I do not deny, btw). Even the he's-not-HRC-and-that's-good-enough-for-me crowd will have to admit that this carries up only up to a certain point.

 

No idea what "ridiculous far left views" are referenced. The only way HRC can be considered "far left" is if viewed from the "far right".  Same goes for "good for the country" - there's usually no agreed upon common view on that.

 

Respect for the office is a convention. We are constantly told that Trump is not a conventional politician and will not be a conventional president. Respect for the office could be expected when the person about to occupy the post would conduct himself in a manner that befits his position.

[Morch]

20 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Expanding on why trump is a threat to democracy, and, yes, fascist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/19/opinion/how-republics-end.html?_r=0

 

I believe this is, perhaps, a more fitting treatment of the same theme - less charged with nuance, though (thanks to Craig for the referral):

 

How Democracies Fall Apart

Why Populism Is a Pathway to Autocracy

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2016-12-05/how-democracies-fall-apart?cid=nlc-twofa-20161208&sp_mid=52950027&sp_rid=Y3JhaWd0MzM2NUB5YWhvby5jb20S1&spMailingID=52950027&spUserID=MjE3MDk0NDUwMzY3S0&spJobID=1061608153&spReportId=MTA2MTYwODE1MwS2

 

Granted, an imperfect analysis, and doesn't offer a whole lot by way of a solution.

 

 

[Morch]

17 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Exactly and all this ridiculous nonsense comparing Trump to famous fascists just makes that more obvious. The crybabies need to accept that their candidate was unacceptable and consequently they lost.

 

If you want to go on about improper comparisons, that's fine - not much into that too. But pairing it with something like "their candidate was unacceptable", shows pretty much the same line of thought. HRC was not "unacceptable", but merely lost the elections. Her defeat and Trump's victory does not totally negate her legitimacy as a candidate, her views or the views of her supporters.

 

This is just more of the ongoing blanket labeling and all-or-nothing attitudes prevailing on this forum.

[Opl]

21 hours ago, NeverSure said:

Trump is a political genius. Before you diss that let me remind that against all odds and using his own tactics he won the Primaries against 16 other candidates and then won the general election and held the Electoral College. By every metric that counts he beat "the inevitable" HRC by a landslide.

 

He did it while spending about 1/2 as much money as HRC did which makes sense when you pit a businessman against a politician who never actually earned any of her own money.

 

Knowing how unpopular and how mistrusted the MSM is, and knowing they would be in the tank for HRC, he came out blasting the MSM which itself was a very popular tactic with the people. Conventional wisdom has been that one needs the MSM to win but it didn't work for HRC and they couldn't touch Trump. At his rallies he'd point at them and actually get people to boo them. Then he went around them with tools such as Twitter. He has 17 million followers on Twitter - far more than watch any TV program and he can get his "news" out in a flash, 24/7.

 

Just keep on making fun of his Twitter tactics. He won the POTUS with them.

 

Again, the same people who told me Trump couldn't win (while I kept insisting that he would win) are now having the nerve to tell me how he'll do as POTUS. Amazing.

 

Cheers.

 

HAHAHA yes Trump is a political Genius

 

Donald Trump’s Greatest Self-Contradictions

The many, many, MANY sides of the likely Republican nominee, in his own words.

By Michael Kruse and Noah Weiland

May 05, 2016

" Has anyone ever disagreed with Donald Trump more than Donald Trump?"

“I have no intention of running for president.” (Time, September 14, 1987)

“I am officially running for president.” (New York, June 16, 2015)

“I don’t want it for myself. I don’t need it for myself.” (ABC News, November 20, 2015)

 

 

 

 extended version for your pleasure : http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/donald-trump-2016-contradictions-213869

( gems Inside)

 

 

Edited December 22, 2016 by Opl

[Silurian]

In the illegitimate POTUS-elect's own words..."You’ve been hearing me say it’s a rigged system. But now I don’t say it anymore because I won. Okay? It’s true. You know, now I don’t care."

 

Donald Trump can be weirdly honest about his lying.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/12/15/13966872/trump-lying-daily-show

 

How refreshing. To be totally honest about lying. I think I'll try that approach at work. Yep, I took that sick day because I was "sick" of seeing my inept boss's face not because I actually had the flu. I bet that will get me promoted.

 

[Ulysses G.]

2 hours ago, Silurian said:

 

How refreshing. To be totally honest about lying.

 

 

Where did he say that he lied? He feels that it was rigged in his opponents favor, but he won anyway. All those angry old white people showed up. LOL. He does not care under the circumstances.

[Ulysses G.]

4 hours ago, Opl said:

 

HAHAHA yes Trump is a political Genius

 

 

He won a presidential race that many considered unwinnable and shocked the whole nation. He certainly deserves credit for that.

[Guest]

Somewhat brillian post on Imgur (read, goign viral): NPD - A guide to learning to deal with narcissistic personality disorder

http://imgur.com/gallery/1rMMu

 

This is what the Trump presidency is all about

 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

14 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Under certain conditions, yes - one man can sweep aside a whole lot of taken for granted institutions, liberties and traditions. Not saying this is actually happening at this time, just that the US is not immune, despite contrary opinions prevailing among some. Such things do not have to happen overnight, or without consent, even.

 

So which is it? Did HRC lose the elections or did Trump win them? Seems like either version is deployed, depending on the point posters try to make on a given topic. Saying HRC is to blame for the election results is hardly a compliment for Trump, is it? And as the current topic is about Trump electoral college victory, perhaps more fitting to highlight his supposed merits, rather than going on about his rival's faults (which I do not deny, btw). Even the he's-not-HRC-and-that's-good-enough-for-me crowd will have to admit that this carries up only up to a certain point.

 

No idea what "ridiculous far left views" are referenced. The only way HRC can be considered "far left" is if viewed from the "far right".  Same goes for "good for the country" - there's usually no agreed upon common view on that.

 

Respect for the office is a convention. We are constantly told that Trump is not a conventional politician and will not be a conventional president. Respect for the office could be expected when the person about to occupy the post would conduct himself in a manner that befits his position.

Of course she lost it. All the mainstream media, the elites etc, all the anti Trumpers on here said he had no possibility of winning. He was really unpopular and had the Billy tapes to shame him. By all logic he should never have won. 

However, she is so awful, so crooked, so unattractive, so out of touch with middle America, that she lost when it would have been an easy win for any half way decent politician.

Unfortunately, many on here are still trying to say that she should have won just because she is a woman and it was her turn. Luckily, democracy doesn't work that way. For a sure thing, I believe Cuba is probably a good place to live.

[ilostmypassword]

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course she lost it. All the mainstream media, the elites etc, all the anti Trumpers on here said he had no possibility of winning. He was really unpopular and had the Billy tapes to shame him. By all logic he should never have won. 

However, she is so awful, so crooked, so unattractive, so out of touch with middle America, that she lost when it would have been an easy win for any half way decent politician.

Unfortunately, many on here are still trying to say that she should have won just because she is a woman and it was her turn. Luckily, democracy doesn't work that way. For a sure thing, I believe Cuba is probably a good place to live.

wrong. If the USA had democracy - rule by popular vote - Clinton would have won.

[Boon Mee]

8 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

wrong. If the USA had democracy - rule by popular vote - Clinton would have won.

The Founding Fathers were a smart bunch and created the Electoral College for just such cases.  

Don't think the rest of America wants to be ruled by California and NY alone. 

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, Boon Mee said:

The Founding Fathers were a smart bunch and created the Electoral College for just such cases.  

Don't think the rest of America wants to be ruled by California and NY alone. 

As usual, you've missed the point.

[Boon Mee]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

As usual, you've missed the point.

Actually, I didn't.  Take California out of the equation and Trump would have won the popular vote. 

[beechguy]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

As usual, you've missed the point.

I would say Hillary and the DNC missed the point.

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course she lost it. All the mainstream media, the elites etc, all the anti Trumpers on here said he had no possibility of winning. He was really unpopular and had the Billy tapes to shame him. By all logic he should never have won. 

However, she is so awful, so crooked, so unattractive, so out of touch with middle America, that she lost when it would have been an easy win for any half way decent politician.

Unfortunately, many on here are still trying to say that she should have won just because she is a woman and it was her turn. Luckily, democracy doesn't work that way. For a sure thing, I believe Cuba is probably a good place to live.

 

You forgot the popular vote that the whiners keep bringing up. Given what we're seeing on here many are still crying    in their soup.  

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

wrong. If the USA had democracy - rule by popular vote - Clinton would have won.

LOL. Only Switzerland comes near true "democracy". If you are correct, America has never had "democracy" in all it's years as a republic, but there has never been such wailing about it till now.

I suggest that all the snowflakes get together and start a new party to change the constitution. I'm sure it will be really successful .

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

wrong. If the USA had democracy - rule by popular vote - Clinton would have won.

There is no way you can know that. If the presidency was dependent on the popular vote, Trump could have just promised more stuff for the lazy and still won.

However, it isn't decided on a popular vote so he didn't campaign on that basis.

[thaibeachlovers]

19 hours ago, Morch said:

 

If you want to go on about improper comparisons, that's fine - not much into that too. But pairing it with something like "their candidate was unacceptable", shows pretty much the same line of thought. HRC was not "unacceptable", but merely lost the elections. Her defeat and Trump's victory does not totally negate her legitimacy as a candidate, her views or the views of her supporters.

 

This is just more of the ongoing blanket labeling and all-or-nothing attitudes prevailing on this forum.

Of course Clinton was unacceptable to most people in states other than NY and California. That's why she lost. Trump was probably the most unpopular candidate ever in modern times, as we were constantly told by the anti Trumpers for months, so the vote was AGAINST her and not for Trump, other than he wasn't her and they didn't want her to win. I would have been happy if the Bern had won, just as long as she didn't.

[Morch]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course she lost it. All the mainstream media, the elites etc, all the anti Trumpers on here said he had no possibility of winning. He was really unpopular and had the Billy tapes to shame him. By all logic he should never have won. 

However, she is so awful, so crooked, so unattractive, so out of touch with middle America, that she lost when it would have been an easy win for any half way decent politician.

Unfortunately, many on here are still trying to say that she should have won just because she is a woman and it was her turn. Luckily, democracy doesn't work that way. For a sure thing, I believe Cuba is probably a good place to live.

 

Try again, perhaps. This is the part you were responding to:

 

Quote

So which is it? Did HRC lose the elections or did Trump win them? Seems like either version is deployed, depending on the point posters try to make on a given topic. Saying HRC is to blame for the election results is hardly a compliment for Trump, is it? And as the current topic is about Trump electoral college victory, perhaps more fitting to highlight his supposed merits, rather than going on about his rival's faults (which I do not deny, btw). Even the he's-not-HRC-and-that's-good-enough-for-me crowd will have to admit that this carries up only up to a certain point.

 

Which one is the flavor of the day? "he won" or "she lost"? The end result is the same, no one argues about that. But the implications are very different.

 

And you can spare the lectures about HRC's character, barking up the wrong tree. As with most of my posts, not a praise for HRC. Can't recall having said much about gender being a factor, and certainly not about "her turn". Would probably be too much expecting you to address the post you're replying to rather than an imaginary one.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Of course Clinton was unacceptable to most people in states other than NY and California. That's why she lost. Trump was probably the most unpopular candidate ever in modern times, as we were constantly told by the anti Trumpers for months, so the vote was AGAINST her and not for Trump, other than he wasn't her and they didn't want her to win. I would have been happy if the Bern had won, just as long as she didn't.

 

So about half of the votes cast in her favor make her "unacceptable"? You sure got a high standard there. Would have been enough to say that she lost, but no - got to go for the all encompassing rejection of "unacceptable". Pretty much a mirror image of JT's stance there, not much to choose from when it comes to accepting results. 

[Jingthing]

5 minutes ago, Morch said:

 

So about half of the votes cast in her favor make her "unacceptable"? You sure got a high standard there. Would have been enough to say that she lost, but no - got to go for the all encompassing rejection of "unacceptable". Pretty much a mirror image of JT's stance there, not much to choose from when it comes to accepting results. 

Please leave me out of this, dude. I can speak for myself. 

[Morch]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Please leave me out of this, dude. I can speak for myself. 

 

I'm wasn't speaking for you. Rather describing how I see both positions as not being all that different when it comes to rejecting the election results.

[Si Thea01]

 

 Gee, here's a first, now the lefties are fighting amongst themselves.  The stress of the loss is taking it's toll.