US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[AnimeFan188]

Ed Klein: Hillary Couldn't Stop Crying, Told Friend
She Blames Comey and Obama For Loss:

"Hillary Clinton "couldn't stop crying" once she learned of her loss to Donald Trump on
Tuesday, best-selling conservative author Ed Klein told Newsmax TV on Wednesday."


""Eventually," he continued, "her friend said she could make out that she was blaming
James Comey, the director of the FBI, for her loss — and this I don't understand
exactly — and the president of the United States for not doing enough."

See:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/ed.../09/id/758084/


Looks like Hillary Clinton isn't taking this loss well.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Harbinger

You're so in denial. It's okay, in a few days, things might become more clear.

(－‸ლ)

Here's a start: Start supporting candidates that don't take money from special interest and pretend to be on your side. You have to be naive to think that those donors aren't expecting something in return, especially if they constantly donate...

Tell me what I am suppose to get. Because currently the only thing I am told about Trump is "he can't really do all the horrible things he said he would do, he would be a harmlessly useless president". And that's from Trump SUPPORTERS!

[Cosmic Eagle]

Originally Posted by Magin

In regards to China- yes, they have extremely strong economic power right now. The difference is, the TPP would only INCREASE it. Already countless US jobs have been lost to China because cheap labor (god I'm starting to sound like Trump... ugh). It's bad enough right now- the TPP only makes it worse, and at the end of the day, I'm a US citizen and have to think about my country first, even if Japan is the other country that I actually also care about.

Relax....Japanese also loathe the TPP...for good reason

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Tell me what I am suppose to get. Because currently the only thing I am told about Trump is "he can't really do all the horrible things he said he would do, he would be a harmlessly useless president". And that's from Trump SUPPORTERS!

I think special interests meant the Saudis, among other things. Fuckers who have shown everyone else that they cannot be trusted and should have been glassed back to stone age if not for the oil.

< a parisian still fucking angry over the role they have played in spreading the shit that eventually gave us the Bataclan attack.

[Harbinger]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Tell me what I am suppose to get. Because currently the only thing I am told about Trump is "he can't really do all the horrible things he said he would do, he would be a harmlessly useless president". And that's from Trump SUPPORTERS!

Technically, Presidents surround themselves with councilors. If he picks "good" ones (let's not kid ourselves on that... he already has neocons around him), he might make "good" decisions.

The President is only as good as the people he surrounds himself with.

A President who really wants to change things will surround themselves with outsiders (or should I say... carefully selected decent individuals), not "Goldman Sachs", bankers or other questionable individuals.

The people he will surround himself with are most likely not as "crazy" as the things he said during the election... so I'll answer you this way: We shall see.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

What's the point? America clearly isn't interested in policy. If Democrats want to win American votes, they need a conman. We have confirmed this. Clinton's problem is that she isn't likable, she couldn't pretend to be nice. We need a fraud, someone who can say anything and everything to please his or her audiences. A candidate with zero political qualifications, who's only job is to trick the country into voting for him. Just leave the leadership qualifications to the VP. Americans already told us what they want, Democrats have to learn to play along.

Give Americans what they deserve.

And you know the saddest part? I am dead serious about this. Democrats tried to treat Americans like they are adults, and that clearly isn't working. It is time to treat Americans like children, and tell them what they want to hear.

Leonardo Di Caprio for president. He's already an Oscar winning actor, he's played good guys, he's played bad guys, he's popular with "millenials"...

[Ithekro]

Just to put it out there, the last three elections the Republican party has managed to round up around 60 million votes. Both terms for Obama the Democratic Party rounded up several million more votes and tipped the Electoral College to him. This year, the Republicans still only round up around 60 million votes, but Clinton can't round up more than that as well and doesn't tip the Electoral College to her favor.

Did the voters change all that much in relation to the Republican Party? Not really. What changed was that several million less people that voted Democrat in the previous two elections didn't vote. The question is why? Was it something Trump did? Probably not. What it something the Democratic Party did? Likely. Was it because of eight years of Obama? Probably not. Was it because it was Hillary Clinton? Yes. Way, way too much political baggage to get five to nine million people that voted for Obama to vote for her.

Some of that was third party voting with the various third parties gaining about 4 million votes since 2012, but even with that the Democratic Party would have had more votes had their people voted? Also the majority of the Third Party was Libertarian gaining something like 3% of the total votes.

I wonder how many wrote in Sanders (like I did)? That be an interesting statistic to find out.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by Harbinger

A President who really wants to change things will surround themselves with outsiders (or should I say... carefully selected decent individuals), not "Goldman Sachs", bankers or other questionable individuals.

Heh...

One contender for Treasury secretary is the former Goldman Sachs executive, who in the past has donated to both Republicans and Democrats — including Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama.

Mr Trump’s decision in May to ask Mr Mnuchin to work as his chief fundraiser marked a turn to more traditional campaign practices, after months in which the Republican candidate claimed to be self-financing. The two men have a history of working together. Mr Mnuchin, chairman of Dune Capital Management and Dune Entertainment Partners, is a longtime business associate of the tycoon.

https://www.ft.com/content/4df18cd4-...9-02899e8bd9d1

[Sheba]

Medias all had it fucking coming.

EDIT: Should I mention that Clint Eastwood, of all people, have been suspended from twitter? His last tweet? Congratulating Trump for his win. Stay classy, Twitter.

[James Rye]

Originally Posted by Harbinger

Obama was popular. Higher voter turnout = Democrats winning.

The DNC picked the one of the most hated candidate in history with federal criminal investigation on-going.

Of course the voter turnout would have been low. Of course the DNC would have lost.

They selected the candidate with the least % chance of winning and they lost.

I hope that Michelle Obama runs one day. The country could use smart lady... not some crooked PoS.

True that, though I doubt Michelle Obama will do that. She has seen what her husband went through, I don't think she wants to take part in the dirty and hopeless parts of the president business.

Although I find it funny how Trump Supporters keep talking about how the "silent majority" won this election and yet their candidate had less votes than McCain and Romney and Romney was the one who lost his election due the "47%" sentence. Trump could say whatever he wanted, he still won with less votes than Clinton because she was too sure of democratic states she thought she would keep for sure.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Medias all had it fucking coming.

EDIT: Should I mention that Clint Eastwood, of all people, have been suspended from twitter? His last tweet? Congratulating Trump for his win. Stay classy, Twitter.

The video actually made me laugh at the end. And it does show some of what happened. Is this Trump's fault? No. The media is going to have to wake up and stop looking for rating and go back to being journalist. I think Walter Cronkite would be ashamed of the media right now.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

What's the point? America clearly isn't interested in policy. If Democrats want to win American votes, they need a conman. We have confirmed this. Clinton's problem is that she isn't likable, she couldn't pretend to be nice. We need a fraud, someone who can say anything and everything to please his or her audiences. A candidate with zero political qualifications, who's only job is to trick the country into voting for him. Just leave the leadership qualifications to the VP. Americans already told us what they want, Democrats have to learn to play along.

Give Americans what they deserve.

And you know the saddest part? I am dead serious about this. Democrats tried to treat Americans like they are adults, and that clearly isn't working. It is time to treat Americans like children, and tell them what they want to hear.

The Democrats didn't treat Americans like adults. They treated them like tools. People are freaking out about this election, but by god man, the last forty plus years have been brutal for the party. With the exception of Third Way politics, which essentially did nothing but put the party into a devil's bargain with wealthy interests, the party has largely abandoned everything that gave it so much power after 1930, and the people have responded by abandoning it.

What did the DNC and the Clintons in was hubris. People like me, and so many others who tend to get shouted down because we're "far left", have been talking about and trying to warn about these problems for years.

Watching Bernie get hammered so hard by his own party and so many liberals who thought he was wrong....honestly it was heartbreaking. I'm not normally one to feel outwardly emotional about politics, but when he broke into tears at the convention I almost lost it too.

The only thing that vindicates this loss is that people are finally realizing that the crazy old man from Vermont might have been on to something. Too bad it took them so long to notice. I feel bad for Clinton, but the party needed a reality check.

[Ithekro]

My ideal would be to have someone like Theodore Roosevelt running for President. That's more my style. I don't even know where he'd be on the scales anymore, since he was basically a progressive republican back in the 1900s and later the actual Progressive Party when he decided to go a third term in office.

He's still the youngest person to ever hold the office of President of the United States of America.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

He's still the youngest person to ever hold the office of President of the United States of America.

Speaking of that, is Trump the oldest person to get into office? He's already 70, Reagan was still 69 when he was sworn in, with his birthday in February. Actually the age of the candidates for these elections was a bit confusing for me. Trump is 70, Clinton is 69 and Sanders is 75. Don't they have some legitimate and suitable young(er) candidates left? It looked like a papal election.

[ganbaru]

Originally Posted by Solace

The only thing that vindicates this loss is that people are finally realizing that the crazy old man from Vermont might have been on to something. Too bad it took them so long to notice. I feel bad for Clinton, but the party needed a reality check.

The Republican did a pretty accurate analyse of why they lost after Obama's election ( they didn't follow it but that's another story), the question is if the DNC, especially the top leadership, will do the same. My guess is that they won't until at least another lost election, either 2018 or 2020.

[Jaden]

I would've supported Sanders, he seems like the most selfless of all the candidates. But I don't think he would have won. He only looked good during the primaries, because him and Clinton had a gentleman's agreement not to sling too much mud...but there's a lot in his past that would be used against him in a general election. He'd be painted as a raging communist, and not entirely without reason. He'd be rejected by mostly the same people that rejected Clinton, though for different reasons.

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

Speaking of that, is Trump the oldest person to get into office? He's already 70, Reagan was still 69 when he was sworn in, with his birthday in February. Actually the age of the candidates for these elections was a bit confusing for me. Trump is 70, Clinton is 69 and Sanders is 75. Don't they have some legitimate and suitable young(er) candidates left? It looked like a papal election.

Youngest one can be to run for President is 35 years old. The youngest to be in office (Teddy) was 42. The youngest elected was Kennedy at 43.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by Harbinger

A President who really wants to change things will surround themselves with outsiders (or should I say... carefully selected decent individuals), not "Goldman Sachs", bankers or other questionable individuals.

Guess who are the two people shortlisted to be Trump's Secretary of the Treasury?

Former Goldman Sachs banker, Steven Mnuchin
and
Former JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon

You were saying?

Of course the choice isn't final yet. But I doubt the final decision would be an "outsider".

[frivolity]

I think Romney should have run, and he would most likely have won. I saw a poll (we've learnt not to put too much faith in polls of course) that Republicans would have voted for him over Trump, and he most likely would have cruised to victory in the General Election. Deferring his candidacy to Bush because the latter called dibs is a massive mistake that might kill the whole party in 2020 when Trump presumably fails.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by frivolity

I think Romney should have run, and he would most likely have won. I saw a poll (we've learnt not to put too much faith in polls of course) that Republicans would have voted for him over Trump, and he most likely would have cruised to victory in the General Election. Deferring his candidacy to Bush because the latter called dibs is a massive mistake that might kill the whole party in 2020 when Trump presumably fails.

How well Trump does in 2020 is a COMPLETELY different thing compared to 2016. If Trump even tries to go for a re-election in the first place it will be based on his 4 years as president. It doesn't matter what good or bad things he might have possibly done in the past, I don't think many people will care when compared to what he did to, or against, or for them in 2017-2020.

But perhaps he won't even run for re-election. According to estimates the one thing that's thought to take the most time, "The Wall", will take about 4 years, i.e. 1 term, to build. And Trump's slogan for building is "under budget and ahead of schedule".