(November 13, 2016 at 8:27 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: That's why when he takes office, the ceremony is called an inauguration, not a coronation. Here in America we don't believe in oohing and awing over the emperor's new clothes.

You sure? In my lifetime, observing policy and American policy for the last 37 years, this is the real Litmus test for America. If it survives that unscathed, you're good to go. There have been quiter a few presidents I didn't like, starting with Reagan, but there has been none compared to Trump. I'm not even sure if he's that bad for Europe, since there have been quite a few things set into motion these last days I wanted to happen for the last two decades. Such as creating a combined European army, just in case that NATO may fail. Many who were opposed to that thought now feel like it's a good idea.

It might be a step to integration and a step away from relying on NATO, which I considered a remnant of the Cold war anyway.

(November 13, 2016 at 8:24 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 8:19 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Yeah, I think that comment was a real blunder. Attack the politician and/or his policies, but never attack the voters.

It wasn't wise from a political standpoint, but it's one of the few genuine things she said - as far as I am concerned. I share that view, as I said in the other thread. And I don't give half a shit how reluctantly they voted for Trump. The message was out there, for everyone to see, the KKK endorsment was out there for everyone to see, and still ...

Deplorables? I would have chosen a stronger word. But I'm not a politician. A politician probably should have been more of a diplomat.

How about shitfaced cockmeisters?

If Hillary had called them that she'd probably have won.

My bold.

(November 13, 2016 at 8:24 pm)abaris Wrote: It wasn't wise from a political standpoint, but it's one of the few genuine things she said - as far as I am concerned. I share that view, as I said in the other thread. And I don't give half a shit how reluctantly they voted for Trump. The message was out there, for everyone to see, the KKK endorsment was out there for everyone to see, and still ...

Deplorables? I would have chosen a stronger word. But I'm not a politician. A politician probably should have been more of a diplomat.

Maybe if she'd grabbed his private parts and run. That didn't hurt his chances. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Not!

(November 13, 2016 at 8:33 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 8:27 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: That's why when he takes office, the ceremony is called an inauguration, not a coronation. Here in America we don't believe in oohing and awing over the emperor's new clothes.

You sure? In my lifetime, observing policy and American policy for the last 37 years, this is the real Litmus test for America. If it survives that unscathed, you're good to go. There have been quiter a few presidents I didn't like, starting with Reagan, but there has been none compared to Trump. I'm not even sure if he's that bad for Europe, since there have been quite a few things set into motion these last days I wanted to happen for the last two decades. Such as creating a combined European army, just in case that NATO may fail. Many who were opposed to that thought now feel like it's a good idea.

It might be a step to integration and a step away from relying on NATO, which I considered a remnant of the Cold war anyway.

Are you saying they created the army in response to Trump?

Has Europe also set up protections from the economic upheaval Trump may cause in a global economy?

(November 13, 2016 at 9:04 pm)Rhondazvous Wrote: Are you saying they created the army in response to Trump?

Has Europe also set up protections from the economic upheaval Trump may cause in a global economy?

1) The ones having been reluctant so far are now considering the idea.

2) impossible,

(November 13, 2016 at 8:23 pm)Alasdair Ham Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 4:28 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

In all seriousness... you're one of the loveliest people here LFC.

Awwww, thanks HammyPooh! You are lovely as well, my dear! [emoji8]

(November 13, 2016 at 4:27 pm)abaris Wrote:

(November 13, 2016 at 4:22 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I agree with your comments about the hysteria and apocalypse type attitude. But that does not mean we shouldn't criticize Trump. I'd be doing it to Hillary too, if it was her. And I did it plenty to Obama. Being president doesn't mean we have to like them.

True. But a Congress at his disposal doesn't bode well. They're more or less in line with most things he claimed to do. I can only repeat - big caveat, he's not Hitler - but it would do well to take him at his word. The biggest stupidity is not taking any authoritarian politician at his word. They mean what they say and they will at least attempt to do what they said. If checks and balances are up to the job is about the only thing remaining to be seen.

History has told us as much.

Here's the thing. Trump is definitely an authoritarian by nature and, like many authoritarians, he really doesn't seem to have many substantive policy ideas rattling around in his head. So he is going to rely on his cabinet and closest advisors in ways that would even make George W. Bush blush for shame. And who are they going to be? Social conservatives cut from the same cloth as Pence on domestic policy and probably a lot of the neo-con crowd advising on foreign policy.

Just because Trump won don't think that the tug-of-war for the GOP's "soul" is over. I suspect the smarter Republicans in Congress and in the foreign affairs community see him as a somewhat pliable negotiating partner (if not a tabula rasa they can write on). And since Trump is not really a conservative, even he and his closest advisors must understand that he is going to have to meet the real conservatives somewhere in the middle if he wants to enact many of his policy proposals, such as they are.

This could easily turn into a worst-case situation in which Trump rubber stamps every regressive piece of legislation on the GOP wish list in order to bring a Congressional majority on board for many of his more controversial campaign promises.

You want to know why he won? Because the democrats shot themselves in the foot. He wasn't more liked than Hillary; he was less hated than her.

Democrats changed what they're usually about. I was raised in a labor union family and that was the democratic party that was always popular before. Appeal to working class people, appeal to factory workers, things like that. Instead, the appeal was mostly to minority groups. What about the majority? Well, this was the election cycle where "white male" was turned into an insult, despite the fact that white males are the majority. As much as the insults Trump spewed were much worse, the lesson here needs to be learned: you will NEVER succeed in a democracy when you alienate the majority. That's not how a democracy works.

Truth is, as much as so many people delight in calling them privileged, it's not that simple at all. Think about things from their perspective: you're a 50 year old factory worker. You got out of high school and got a factory job. You did what you were told, worked hard, and everything. Before, everything was hunky dory for you but now..... now your jobs are being automated or sent overseas. The blue collar jobs left are harder to get, don't pay as well and (according to popular myth) are being filled by illegal immigrants. And instead of addressing those issues, democrats appealed to a bunch of trust fund college kids who are chastising those blue collar workers for being privileged.

Donald Trump also won because he was populous within the Republican party. Remember the primaries where he was the populous candidate while he was competing against several establishment candidates? Had the GOP only had one establishment candidate against him, this may have turned out differently, but it didn't so that's a discussion for another time. Hillary, on the other hand, was the establishment for the Democrats with Bernie Sanders being the populous candidate. I think he certainly appealed to people more than Hillary did and had he won the nomination, it would have been a vastly different campaign. It certainly would have been interesting to see how the label of "socialist" would have worked as a smear tactic today; in the 80's it would have been suicide, but a lot has changed since then. And if my prediction is accurate, we'll be seeing that over the next few years; the demorats love Bernie Sanders and their love for him is just going to grow. It would be nice to see him genuinely change the party from the inside.

So, want a democrat to win? Follow these three points:

1) Be populous, not establishment

2) Talk about economic issues.

3) Don't insult people you need to vote for you.

Truth is, Trump terrifies me. Yeah, people say he won't start WW3 with Russia. But as brash as he is on Twitter, do you really want that kind of hot head with his hand on the button? I mean, remember his reaction when Obama won reelection in 2012? What happens when he reacts like a petutlant child over a trade deal he doesn't like? Or when congress won't pass a bill he wants? Or when the supreme court makes a ruling that he disagrees with? I feel like we're walking on a knife's edge here; even Pence was more predictable than this.

That being said, I'm becoming increasingly disillusioned with politics altogether. Maybe it's sour grapes, maybe it's from reading 1984 recently, but it feels like democrats always did a lot of lip service for middle class and lower class voters, but when they're actually in power, they don't actually help any of those groups. Sure, they'll help minorities, but only the minorities who are already rich and powerful. Everyone else, both sides doesn't do anything to help them no matter what they say.

Actually, Hillary won the popular vote... so Trump was not more liked. Overall, the people wanted Clinton. Trump simply won the states that mattered.