Trump Has A Mandate
- Thread starter patrick jane
- Start date
- Status
I don't think we get to cherry pick what we want from a person. There were plenty of fine upstanding People in the Primaries. Vetted, Degreed, people of Letters and long Resumes of public service. But they couldn't get it done. They held no sway because he had no shame. No sacred cows. The man was on Professional Wrestling for crying out loud. I don't know if my son/daughter/neighbor could pull off what he did.
It's going to be something alright, whatever it is it isn't what the Two parties tried to feed us.
Trying new things involves risk.
He's a billionaire with hundreds of enterprises and thousands of lawsuits.
I'm sure that's what happened in some, I imagine bulldozing the sand dunes in Scotland brought some on the books, he most likely pisses people off everywhere he builds.
But people keep doing business with him so he can't be that terrible.
He won the Who Can Get Elected President game spending half as much to win as she did to lose.
If that's what you call the Senate.
I don't know what I call the Senate. It's a word for a thing that people have and have had for a while.
That seems to be a feature of our system, the Senate is the quicksand.
I guess the people could right it by separating into smaller states?
When can Trump pick up his Peace Prize?
I guess that happens sometimes.
19 Days to go.
I've seen evidence of miscounting and mistakes. I haven't seen any clear evidence of ballot stuffing. And it was Trump who sued to stop the recount.
That doesn't make it a landslide. A bit surprising, yes, but not a landslide. He did a little better in three states than expected, and that made the difference. It still amounts of a relatively small electoral college win by historical standards, and a loss at the popular vote.
Yes, exactly. It was one of the most un-substantive elections in history. But the thing is, if anyone ever bothered to look at the issues, Clinton is far better. So the fact that the media obsessed over the emails constantly, and was manipulated to obsess over them played into Trump's miniature hands.
You know who are overpaid? Not the college educated. Have you seen the cost of a college education? They need it just to pay their loans. No, the people who are overpaid are investment bankers. They get tons of money just for moving money around in unimaginable sums, producing little actual value themselves, and they get special deals on their taxes to boot. Clinton isn't especially good on this score, but Trump seems to be eager to do as many favors as he can for these folks, include the repeal of Dodd-Frank, restoring the casino-style government-backed gambling that Wall Street found so lucrative leading up to the Great Recession.
The only candidate talking about that this election was Bernie.
2.1%, actually. They weren't done counting the votes on election night.
Gee, maybe the college educated faculty need to stop being overpaid :rotfl:
It doesn't really matter how you all spin it, you're going to end right back at the fact that it is an industry of outclassing others. America has gotten in trouble because of it, it's not the fault of the blue collars.
Not so much. Another interesting tidbit about the election:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ost-of-the-american-economy-in-this-election/
TL;DR: The minority of counties that Clinton won (Trump won more than five times as many counties as Clinton) represents almost two-thirds of the nation's economy.
There's this attitude that prevails among conservatives, that if you're poor, it's your fault, and you need to pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. This especially comes out if the poor person is black or Hispanic, and is often used to stereotype those folks as shiftless and lazy. But, here we have a vastly white population, which also turns out to be vastly less productive then the rest of the country, and also pretty conservative and willing to vote Republican. I suspect that this achievement gap will not be chalked up to some sort of failing of white people as a group.
But thanks for your biased rendition of reality- it really helped get you all out of government, do it again
Is it just me, or did this country do better when there weren't so many uselessly smart people walking around :chuckle:
Sounds like a rationalization for underachievement to me.
Well, I have a college degree. It's been a while since I changed a tire, but I've done it, and I changed my car's battery last week. But I do generally prefer to pay someone to do those sorts of tasks that are easier done in a well-equipped shop.
Last edited:
I believe a variant of that is precisely the explanation for Trump. I've heard people reduce their consideration to something like, "He'll shake up the system/send a message" without a great deal of particular consideration of the shaker.
I know all sorts of extraordinary people who couldn't sell you a used car. I wouldn't recommend most of the ones who can for president.
Except without a popular mandate, with a marginal loss in both houses of a party leadership that neither likes nor feels it owes its strength to his efforts, what is it he can accomplish? Only what they allow and support.
You've said that a few times. I'm not sure what it signifies, which is why I asked if your concentration on spending means his came cheaply or she paid too much.
Senators are popularly elected. I'm talking about the foundation of representative government, not whether those elected wield equal power. Chairmen have more of it, the president has more of it.
Same response. You're conflating the power of elected individuals with the election of them to power. At the foundation of our government is the principle of equality before the law and in right. Telling people that if they live in a city their vote doesn't mean as much is a bad idea and contrary to that foundational principle.
Simpler to let the man or woman who, unlike the Senate or House, represents "We the People" be decided by those people and not by an operation that allows a minority of the electorate to usurp it.
After the game, if he scores. Speaking of...
And that's why they'll never take away the right to bear arms.
lain:
Mainly the upper class has that attitude, and it's not exclusive to conservatives.
Speaking of which, if you asked anyone outside of the 1% which class they are, they would say 'middle'.
It's nonsense.
If you can afford this:
You are not middle class as far as I'm concerned.
This is middle class:
There are people with degrees that are completely and utterly useless.
And
It certainly is not required to be successful or have intelligence.
Them blue collar folk
I don't think we've ever lost for the sake of having more education. The fact of the matter is that governments have been pulling funding out of higher ed for a long time (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...part-iii-the-three-reasons-tuition-is-rising/), and after the Great Recession, the endowments that fund Universities were yielding a lot less revenue. The result is that costs are shifted from taxpayers and long-term investment revenue mechanisms owned by Universities to students. So, whereas in the Baby Boomer generation, you could reasonably go to college and largely pay your way with maybe a few loans, people are taking out loans big enough to buy houses just for the chance to compete for a job that they hope will be there when they are ready to take it.
We need educated workers to compete in increasingly skilled labor market. And education is a big part of how the middle class in this country was built.
Can you elaborate?
Speaking of which, if you asked anyone outside of the 1% which class they are, they would say 'middle'.
It's nonsense.
If you can afford this:
You are not middle class as far as I'm concerned.
This is middle class:
The middle class has tiers. There are some relatively wealthy people in it. I see nothing obviously too opulent about that first house to fall into that category.
Certainly. That doesn't much recommend ignorance to me.
I can guarantee you the owner of that house sees their self as middle class :chuckle:
There was a sealed ballot box, the sticker said there was 306 ballots in there, 306 votes were counted, open the box and there's only 50 ballots in there. They say "sometimes they gets stuck and we have to re-run them, and then we might forget to re-set the count".
So 5o ballots all got stuck and had to be re-reun 6 times each, then they "forgot" to adjust the count 256 times.
Would you categorize that as "Miscounting" or "Mistakes" ?
They had the odds at 98% Hillary to 2% Trump.
I don't know what you call it when someone with a two percent chance wins, I call it a landslide.
Not better at Cyber Security.........
That seems like an unlikely explanation. But then, if you run the ballots through 6 times, and you only have 50, you get 300 votes, not 306. And if you run them through 7 times, you get 350. Seems more likely to me that some number of ballots disappeared. And unlike what Alex Jones reported, these were ballots found inside a voting machine, not inside a sealed box.
http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/07/election-issues/95121934/
At the end of the day, I wanted the recount to continue, and any discrepancies explained. If there was fraud, which so far is only supported by hyperbolic conjecture, I want it prosecuted. Trump sued to prevent that.
I call it beating the odds.
Or maybe she was just under greater attack.
I can guarantee you the owner of that house sees their self as middle class :chuckle:
I don't see any problem with that.
It looks like all those college students won't get their pHD in yoga - FOR FREE - so sad
- Status