The Donald Trump Thread

Steve said:
To me none of that really matters.

Trump is indirectly teaching me a load of stuff that wouldn't be available had Hillary won, the same thing with the Remainers (I was one btw). To me the way things seem to be working adds to my strong sense of there being a 'bigger picture'.

Watch out Malf, there's woo about!!! ;)
Click to expand...
That needs at least a page of elaboration - even though I think I half know what you mean.

As I see it, the US started the Syrian war using its tried and tested technique of finding some amazing pro-western fighters who just happen to look almost identical to ISIS. Those are the people that the Syrian army and the Russians are trying to get out of Eastern Aleppo right now, and their cousins are in Mosul.

Under Hillary, we would have been in a confrontation situation with Russia, and the absolute best we could have hoped for would have been a continuation of the brutal war in Syria because the US is arming terrorists and trying to wipe them out at the same time.

Somehow the media manage to turn a blind eye to all this.

Donald Trump has also managed to point out the obvious.

1) Trade deals export jobs, so poor Americans get poorer and if they are employed that becomes less and less secure.

2) Islam has become a fusion of religion and politics. Its politics is not exactly pro-West - so it makes no sense to invite more and more Muslims to come to the West. If Presidents Trump and Putin can join forces to end the Middle East wars, that will do more for the people of the region than we can ever achieve by immigration.

3) Donald Trump can see what most 'ordinary' people can see - that there is something bogus about 'Climate Change'. It might be that China can sign the agreement and go on opening coal fired power stations, while we are supposed to close ours, it might be that the extra cost of electricity is almost unbearable for them, it might be that they read endless columns in the newspapers about 'scientific pronouncements about all sorts that contradict each other, it might be that they have used GOOGLE to research the subject a bit.

4) Here in Britain, ordinary people are routinely excoriated for wanting no more immigration, but the reality is that they know what large Muslim populations have done in other parts of the world - think of parts of Indonesia - and they don't want that to happen here. They also realise that we can't fix the world by simply moving populations to the West.

5) The media have become less and less honest in recent years, and this is a frightening phenomenon because our whole democratic system requires that we can access the truth.

https://www.rt.com/news/370155-gorbachev-interview-ap-russia/

I'd love to get the 'woo' connection, but maybe the forces of good that really love this world, and want it to remain peaceful have finally got a bit of the upper hand.

David
 
Last edited:
malf said:
This is a massive popular vote win for a losing candidate.
Click to expand...

Yes but you don't change the rules part way through. It is possible to win more points in a tennis match, but lose the match! People would play tennis a bit differently if every point counted equally. Likewise Trump would have spread his message more evenly over the US if the rules were different.

What I think everyone seems to forget is that approximately half the US voters voted for a change - surely that should sober the Democrats up a bit - half the population didn't like the Democrats any more!

David
 
Steve said:
There's talk of the Electoral College voting against making Trump President. Is this possible and if it is what do any of you think might happen?
Click to expand...

It's possible but will never happen.

A lot of this is mere theater. I have friends who continually ask me why I'm not freaking out, to which I ask what their freaking out is going to accomplish. Which is not to say people shouldn't organize whether they're liberals or conservatives opposing Trump - that's a fundamental cornerstone of democracy. But panic is different than preparation.

The quote from the I-Ching - "The superior man thinks of evil that will come and guards against it." - is, to me, advice against flailing panic and gorging one's self on everything bad that might happen. The latter seems like the political equivalent of watching horror movies rather than actually accomplishing something.
 
Michael Larkin said:
If the president were to be elected by a simple statewide majority of electors, the result wouldn't have been the same. For a start, all the people in the coastal states who favoured Trump might have been more inclined to vote, but as things are, they probably didn't see the point. No point either in trying to suggest that the popular vote went to Hillary, because no one knows, in a popular vote system, who would have won. It might have been Trump, and by a significant majority, for all we know.
Click to expand...

Very true.
 
all-in-the-game.jpg


Epitomises the Electoral college popular vote discrepancy
 
Michael Larkin said:
I don't know, as a Brit, what I would have voted in the US presidential election. How a nation of over 300 million people can end up being offered a choice between Hillary and Trump is beyond me. Maybe in the end Trump is marginally preferable, and on that basis, he won. We'll all have to cross our fingers and wait and see what he does.
Click to expand...
Remember that Nigel Farage (former UKIP leader) seems to be Trump's unofficial advisor - I amquite confident that Donald Trump is the right choice!
The electoral college is rather like the British electoral system, where a simple majority in different constituencies decides the outcome, resulting in the effective disenfranchisement of large numbers of electors. Aspects of the popular vote may not end up being represented -- witness the way that 4 million votes for UKIP ended up getting them only 1 seat in the house of commons.

If the president were to be elected by a simple statewide majority of electors, the result wouldn't have been the same. For a start, all the people in the coastal states who favoured Trump might have been more inclined to vote, but as things are, they probably didn't see the point. No point either in trying to suggest that the popular vote went to Hillary, because no one knows, in a popular vote system, who would have won. It might have been Trump, and by a significant majority, for all we know.
Click to expand...

I agree completely! It might be an idea to change the rules before the 2020 election, but by then, I rather hope President Trump will have shown himself to be a really great president, and it won't matter how they count the votes!

David
 
Sciborg_S_Patel said:
I have friends who continually ask me why I'm not freaking out, to which I ask what their freaking out is going to accomplish. Which is not to say people shouldn't organize whether they're liberals or conservatives opposing Trump - that's a fundamental cornerstone of democracy.
Click to expand...
I think you should transcend the liberal vs conservative approach to the subject. I think DT isn't a traditional conservative, and the liberals (so called) have become incredibly illiberal. Everyone should view this video about the Syrian situation put up by Alex:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...ant-houston-smith-335.3541/page-2#post-103633

David
 
David Bailey said:
I think you should transcend the liberal vs conservative approach to the subject. I think DT isn't a traditional conservative, and the liberals (so called) have become incredibly illiberal. Everyone should view this video about the Syrian situation put up by Alex:

http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threads/dr-dana-sawyer’s-biography-of-spiritual-giant-houston-smith-335.3541/page-2#post-103633

David
Click to expand...

I've said multiple times that people should move on from liberal/conservative labels?

I'd agree Trump isn't a conservative - he's simply an opportunist. I also think most of the worries about liberals being illiberal are overblown.
 
Steve said:
There's talk of the Electoral College voting against making Trump President. Is this possible and if it is what do any of you think might happen?
Click to expand...
In some states, no. They are bound by the laws of that state to vote for who the constituents voted for. In other states, yes. Should they actually succeed, and Hillary is "voted" in? I think two things: 1) it will no longer be feasible to continue to believe that the system is not broken and 2) probably civil war. Which might actually be the point. They've been stoking this "us vs. them" mentality in every way possible for a while now. This might be the spark required to light the powder keg that is America. I hope not. I really hope not.
 
For all those who do not understand why we have an electoral college and do not use the popular vote. It was deliberately and, IMO, ingeniously devised this way for a very specific purpose: the preservation of state sovereignty and to prevent a "tyranny of the majority" situation. And by that I mean tyranny of certain states (I.e. California, New York, Texas, etc.) over smaller states (not geographically) like the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, etc. The EC ensures that sparsely populated states like those I mentioned have a say in who leads the Federal government. It prevents, say, highly left wing states like California from trampling all over more conservative states like Montana.

Fir them to try and change the rules now (like abolishing the EC) and make those changes retroactive to get "their" candidate in would basically amount to a coup. You will have obliterated any semblance of democracy, undermined the constitution and destroyed the traditional rule of law.

Watch and learn something new:
 
BTW, abolishing the EC would require a constitutional amendment, which requires approval by 2/3 majority of the states. In other words, not going to happen. Not soon enough to get Hillary in. BTW, why has no one mentioned that the recounts only improved the numbers for Trump and they actually uncovered legit fraud (Hillary votes) in Detroit?
http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...onsin-recount-tally-1481584948-htmlstory.html
http://www.minyanville.com/business...n-2523recount-2523ballots/12/14/2016/id/59000

Lol! Coincidentally, the last few paragraphs of article 2 are absolute gold!
Likely Explanations for Detroit Vote Tally

  1. Russians hackers infiltrated Detroit ballot machines, skewing the totals to make things look bad for Hillary while secretly stealing her votes.
  2. Russian sympathizers supervised the elections in Wayne Count, purposely not tallying people who did vote.
  3. Russian sympathizers counted the ballots and tallies of the people who voted.
I strongly suspect it's a combination of all three. It's long been known that Wayne County and the Detroit area harbor tens of thousands of Russian foreign agents. Where else would they want to be? Washington? Perish the thought.

I can think of no other logical possibilities other than a remote 0.1% chance that Democrats want a recount except where the fraud was: In Detroit, extremely likely to be heavily in favor of Clinton.
Click to expand...

It was the Russians!!! Maybe we should restart the McCarthy trials. This is clearly a threat. /s

So, are tin foil hats fashionable now?
 
Last edited:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443011/donald-trump-revolution


Lights Out for the Old Order

Trump has wrought a revolution.

...

Yet this election in 2016 is producing a much more profound transition .. Though the losing candidate won the popular vote by over a million votes, it was, as the president-elect has called it, a landslide. Donald Trump is the only person in history to be elected president of the United States without having held a prominent public office or military command, the only one to have paid for his own campaign for the nomination, the only one to have run successfully against the leadership and all the principal factions of both parties, the oldest and wealthiest person to be elected, and the first of a business background. He ran against the system, both parties, and almost all the media and the polls, to “drain the swamp,” against the OBushtons: all the Clintons and Obamas and Bushes and the Republican and Democratic lookalike also-rans (Carter, Dukakis, Quayle, Gore, Kerry, McCain, Romney). The only alumnus of that latter school still in good odor is the 93-year old Robert Dole, vice-presidential candidate in 1976 and presidential candidate in 1996. Trump is not a new broom sweeping clean; this was the big wolf blowing the house down into rubble and splinters and shards.

...
Each major domestic-policy department of government is being entrusted to people dedicated to radical change, ...
...
This is a revolution: There has not been such a transition since Roosevelt in 1932, if not Jackson in 1828,

...

​
 
Vault313 said:
For all those who do not understand why we have an electoral college and do not use the popular vote. It was deliberately and, IMO, ingeniously devised this way for a very specific purpose: the preservation of state sovereignty and to prevent a "tyranny of the majority" situation. And by that I mean tyranny of certain states (I.e. California, New York, Texas, etc.) over smaller states (not geographically) like the Dakotas, Montana, Wyoming, etc. The EC ensures that sparsely populated states like those I mentioned have a say in who leads the Federal government. It prevents, say, highly left wing states like California from trampling all over more conservative states like Montana.

Fir them to try and change the rules now (like abolishing the EC) and make those changes retroactive to get "their" candidate in would basically amount to a coup. You will have obliterated any semblance of democracy, undermined the constitution and destroyed the traditional rule of law.

Watch and learn something new:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this was aimed at me but I understand the why and how of the voting system. I was just pointing out that we have an unprecedented disparity between the popular vote and the college vote (and it comes after a particularly bitter, divisive campaign). It may well be that Trump is a skilled enough politicain to negotiate the problems this throws up. If not, the "tyranny of the majority" cauld be replaced by the "frustration of the majority".
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...termediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers
​
  • Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails
  • He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
  • The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
  • Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
  • 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
 
malf said:
I'm not sure if this was aimed at me but I understand the why and how of the voting system. I was just pointing out that we have an unprecedented disparity between the popular vote and the college vote (and it comes after a particularly bitter, divisive campaign). It may well be that Trump is a skilled enough politicain to negotiate the problems this throws up. If not, the "tyranny of the majority" cauld be replaced by the "frustration of the majority".
Click to expand...
No, not directed at you specifically. One additional benefit to the EC as opposed to popular vote is that it's fairly effective at countering potential fraud. Sorry, I'm not sure I buy that all is what it seems with the popular vote, since the Project Veritas revelations, the DNC leaks, the Podesta emails and now recounts that not only boosted Trumps vote tally but uncovered potential fraud.

But after calling everyone who didn't always buy the mainstream narrative mouth breathers, neckbeards and tin foil hat wearers, the left have launched into an absurd CT of their own without a single solitary shred of proof. I mean, come on. The way the left, the White House and the Dems are behaving is just literally nuthouse territory.

It is the actions of the MSM and our current administration that makes me think they are really running scared. That maybe, just maybe, guys like Hurm were right. They are scared to death that Trump is going to clean house.

We will see.
 
Jim_Smith said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...termediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html

Ex-British ambassador who is now a WikiLeaks operative claims Russia did NOT provide Clinton emails - they were handed over to him at a D.C. park by an intermediary for 'disgusted' Democratic whistleblowers
​
  • Craig Murray, former British ambassador to Uzbekistan and associate of Julian Assange, told the Dailymail.com he flew to Washington, D.C. for emails
  • He claims he had a clandestine hand-off in a wooded area near American University with one of the email sources
  • The leakers' motivation was 'disgust at the corruption of the Clinton Foundation and the 'tilting of the primary election playing field against Bernie Sanders'
  • Murray says: 'The source had legal access to the information. The documents came from inside leaks, not hacks'
  • 'Regardless of whether the Russians hacked into the DNC, the documents Wikileaks published did not come from that,' Murray insists
Click to expand...
Can we also point out what a diversion it is that the MSM is more concerned about pushing the who of the leaks, instead of the actual content. I could care less if it was little green men wearing the worlds smallest purple pants. The fact remains that what has been revealed through of all these leaks/revelations are downright criminal. Criminal. Yet, not one single sentence uttered by the MSM about that. No. Let's blame Russia for everything.

The stupidity on display is literally painful. I need an aspirin.

Edit: BTW, is it just me or are Murray and Assange hinting that it was in fact the now deceased Seth Rich? Saying it without actually saying it.
 
Playing up the possibility of Russian influence is also a diversion by the mainstream (fake) media to hide their own much greater attempts at influence (24x7 over months and months) to get Clinton elected - boosting Trump in the primaries which worked and trashing him in the general election which failed. Their strategy backfired. If Trump won by influence, it was due to the Democrats and mainstream (fake) media influence much more than Russia's. The MSM has made themselves irrelevant by being partisan and fake, now everyone knows it, they are hoist with their own petard, and they can't stand it.
 
Last edited:
The mainstream (fake) media is giving every reason but the truth: Here is why Clinton lost (below). The elites didn't know this, but many voters knew about their own problems. Where were all the news stories about unemployment, poverty, and hunger? There are always plenty of those when a Republican is in the White House. Some people were shocked by the election results ... because the media failed to do its job for the last 8 years.
  • Lowest labor participation rate since the 1970's
  • Almost 95 million Americans out of the labor force
  • Worst recovery since 1940's
  • Lowest home ownership rate in 51 years
  • Almost 13 million more Americans on food stamps (in the last 8 years)
  • Over 43 million living in poverty (8 million more than 8 years ago)
  • 1 in 5 families without someone in the workforce
  • 1 in 6 men ages 18 to 34 are either incarcerated or out of the labor force
  • More [federal government] debt than all other presidents combined
  • GDP Growth less than 3% for the last eight years. Only administration in history never to have at least one year of 3% or higher GDP growth
All that debt owed by the government is really owed by the tax payers. It was supposed to rescue the economy, create jobs, get people out of poverty etc. It failed, but the tax payers are still on the hook to pay it off. That's why Clinton lost. Big government doesn't work. Big bureaucracies are inefficient and incompetent.

The mainstream (fake) media and the Democrats are terrified of Trump. The next four years might prove for the current generation that conservative policies work. That is why the illusion weavers will be spinning full tilt for the next four years.

1:32

Watch the opening monologue. Good economic policy is simple and proven by history (JFK and Reagan - it's too bad they don't teach economics and history in high school and college.) The Democrats and the mainstream (fake) media don't care. If you want to know who causes poverty, find out who benefits from it: politicians who pander to the poor.

The interview with Gingrich after the opening is good too. He talks about Trump.
 
Last edited:
I just saw clips from Trump's rally today on the news, (paraphrasing):

first clip: we are going to have powerful defense forces but hopefully we will never have to use them.

2nd clip: We are going to destroy isis.

Maybe he will make a deal with isis that will destroy them?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top