US election (merged threads)

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

You quoted it word for word, Trump supporter, you then called it 'your personal favourite' then said this woman was in a 'Swing' state, finishing off with 'AMAZING', what exactly were you not saying ??

She was a Trump supporter
It was my personal favourite stupid quote.
It was in a swing state
It was amazing

I didn't say all Trump supporters were stupid. I never would. I've barely met any.

You seemed to have made a huge assumption there.

 

[Two Professors]

She was a Trump supporter
It was my personal favourite stupid quote.
It was in a swing state
It was amazing

I didn't say all Trump supporters were stupid. I never would. I've barely met any.

You seemed to have made a huge assumption there.

He's not the only one.I wonder why?

 

[BigGully]

I sneer at you because you're a fool. You think you're intelligent but you don't ever say anything. You merely spend your time looking out for things you don't agree with, but rather than rebuff them you try and belittle those people. Here it's majona's turn. I honestly don't recall you ever saying anything of note in a political discussion on here. The only person who can rival you for saying so little in so many words is London Irish.

It's "you're" by the way, but I'm sure you knew that. You're a little bit too easy to sneer at in my view, since your vocabulary is so poor.

(I'm sneering at you again)

You always end up being abusive, you will suddenly enter a debate and come and try and start some kind of fight with me, no problem there, but its the inevitable flounce and abuse thats just a bit tiresome.

 

[JCL666]

Dont you get it? These fears and hopes are being dictated by the political elite!

With all this discontentment ask yourself why neither of the candidates ran with any form of structural change to the financial system on the agenda? The world is creaking under this debt based financial system and the constant cycle of boom and bust, and there are alternatives, yet concerns about those damn foreigners across the border in Mexico are somehow higher on the agenda for many people.

I said something about this in another post.

Both Farage and Trump have utilised the disconnect between the electorate and their representatives to pursue their own agendas. In both cases scapegoats have been used to motivate popular support.

Neither have proven that they have the best interest of others as their motivation, instead they both appear to enjoy being the centre of attention and being seen as outsiders or rebels when they are nothing of the sort.

It's odd how there's criticism of the "elite". Yet here we have two incredibly wealthy privileged men wielding extraordinary amounts of influence...... sounds a bit like..... yeah the "elite".

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

He's not the only one.I wonder why?

Because he jumps to conclusions to suit his argument? Probably best to ask him.

Sounds like you may have fallen into the same trap though. I'm sorry for causing such confusion.*





*for the record, my suggestion that a poster on NSC may have got confused is in NO WAY suggesting that ALL posters on NSC are confused.

 

[beorhthelm]

The US election gives the impression that your vote goes towards electing one person for the job of President. Only each of those votes is not equal. A voter in Florida is worth infinitely more than a voter in California or Texas. How can it be right that it is not worth either candidate visiting these places to try and drum up support, to engage with these peoples issues?

why does it give that impression? is the electoral college hidden, or not understood? or is it just simply overlooked so that people misunderstand the process.

and a voter in Florida does not have infinity more worth than California. their worth can be measured in number of voters per electoral vote, which does indeed differ state to state, but is about the same between those large states and ironically favours the smaller states. what happens is that state vote assign their electoral votes as a block vote, and not in proportion to the votes cast. so winning the states with large numbers by a slim margin has more significance than some other places that are substantial majority for or against.

 

[Simster]

You always end up being abusive, you will suddenly enter a debate and come and try and start some kind of fight with me, no problem there, but its the inevitable flounce and abuse thats just a bit tiresome.

Odd definition of a flounce you have. I just get irritated reading your constant misplaced pomposity. Very tiresome.

 

[Soulman]

Which is exactly what Trump's election WON'T deliver. He has conned the electorate into thinking he is something he isn't.

Here is the article I mentioned earlier:
http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ng-class-whites-not-what-it-seems-whats-going



I am still struggling to see how a vote for Trump is a vote for being "more responsive to people’s hopes and fears".

Seeing as I am always being asked for evidence, how do you know Trump "WON'T deliver", how do you know Trump "has conned the electorate", I thought he was due to take over in January.

 

[looney]

Yep, agree. Like Farage organising a march to protest a democratic ruling by the judiciary.

Is that like a Democratic beat down by the old bill?

 

[Megazone]

I think everyone's taking this too far.

When are people going to change the subject?

 

[Soulman]

You always end up being abusive, you will suddenly enter a debate and come and try and start some kind of fight with me, no problem there, but its the inevitable flounce and abuse thats just a bit tiresome.

Take no notice, the sneering an "stupid idiot" etc comments are not just aimed at you. How he manages to lift his head off the pillow in the morning beats me.

 

[BBassic]

The judiciary make judicial decisions, not democratic ones.

Potato / potato.

My point is he didn't like the outcome so he's protesting it.

 

[looney]

You spend a month solid on identity politics and smear campaigns regardless of who wins they will be seen as evil incarnate, ok let them blow of steam, if they go to far its skull cracking time.

To many sheeple on here led by the MSM, they kept this quiet..

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/nov/2/donald-trump-holds-high-flag-gay-equality/

 

[BigGully]

Take no notice, the sneering an "stupid idiot" etc comments are not just aimed at you. How he manages to lift his head off the pillow in the morning beats me.

I have no real problem with it, other than its all just a bit naff, I like a good fight but he rarely hangs around long enough to have one ................

 

[Simster]

Seeing as I am always being asked for evidence, how do you know Trump "WON'T deliver", how do you know Trump "has conned the electorate", I thought he was due to take over in January.

Because he is standing on a ticket that is in direct contradiction of what some of his supporters are actually wanting him to do. Seeing as you haven't read the article, I'll pluck the pertinent bits out for you, the bits that highlight this:

Since I’ve been voting, it’s always been Clinton or Bush; I want a different name,” says Rob, the site superintendent.
On the face of it, this is irrational. The men’s union membership brings privileges, including pay a third higher than their non-unionised colleagues make, which Mrs Clinton supports and Mr Trump threatens to dismantle.

In business, Mr Trump shuns unions; outside New York and Atlantic City, where the building guilds are still fierce, he has hired non-union workers 80% of the time when contractually free to.

wage stagnation is estimated to have left them worse off in real terms than they were in 1996. That is partly due to the decline of unions, which has reduced American workers’ collective-bargaining power. It is also due to heightened competition from China and to technological change. By hammering trade deals, to which he inaccurately attributes most of those problems, Mr Trump has aimed to vindicate the sense of grievance over globalisation that many working-class whites feel.

Nor is resentment of free trade so powerful an explanation for Trumpism as is often made out. A poll by the Pew Research Centre during the primaries found that 60% of Mr Trump’s supporters believed trade had hurt their family’s finances; by comparison, only 42% of backers of John Kasich, the governor of Ohio, said the same. Yet, according to Mr Rothwell, Mr Trump’s supporters were not especially likely to have been hurt by free trade, or to live in the most manufacturing-heavy areas. Industrial regions hardest-hit by Chinese competition still tend to vote Democratic, as Youngstown probably will.

(Trump wants to rip up trade agreements, which this article is saying isn't what many are rallying against)


Sure beats just writing "this", "I've said it already" and "re-read the thread for all my [non existent] previous answers". You should try it some time.

Take no notice, the sneering an "stupid idiot" etc comments are not just aimed at you. How he manages to lift his head off the pillow in the morning beats me.

*cringe*

 

[JetsetJimbo]

You are correct in that it seems ridiculous that Trump could win with fewer votes overall. That possibility exists here with our fptp system as well but I don't think it's ever happened. But, it is still democracy. In my opinion, an inferior form but nonetheless, democracy.

It's actually happened twice in the UK since WW2. Ted Heath's Conservatives got some 200,000 more votes than Harold Wilson's Labour in 1974, but Wilson had a majority of 3. Too slim to govern effectively, which is why there was another election later that year, in which Labour came out top in votes cast and seats won.

In a way, that was payback for 1951, when Churchill's Tories polled around 200,000 fewer votes than Attlee's Labour, but won a majority of 17 seats.

Going back further, Ramsay MacDonald's Labour were the beneficiaries in 1929 despite polling, again, some 200,000 fewer votes than Stanley Baldwin's Conservatives, and in 1874 -- when suffrage was much more restricted -- Disraeli's Conservatives beat Gladstone's Liberals to a majority despite polling fewer votes.

 

[smeg]

Sure beats just writing "this", "I've said it already" and "re-read the thread for all my [non existent] previous answers". You should try it some time.


*cringe*

HaHa, "grow up" is a favourite of mine

 

[Simster]

I have no real problem with it, other than its all just a bit naff, I like a good fight but he rarely hangs around long enough to have one ................

In order to have "a good fight", I'd need somebody with the intellect to put forward reasoned arguments against me. There are plenty out there; off the top of my head:- JC Football Genius, Westdene, that fierce pro-Brexit socialist fella in Bristol, and many others. It's just that you and Soulman add nothing I'm afraid. Never have, never will. You continue your circle jerk if you like though. My prediction is that at some point in the next few months, you'll forget who he is and say something inappropriately condescending whilst saying nothing yourself. He'll then tell you to "grow up" in response.

 

[smeg]

In order to have "a good fight", I'd need somebody with the intellect to put forward reasoned arguments against me. There are plenty out there; off the top of my head:- JC Football Genius, Westdene, that fierce pro-Brexit socialist fella in Bristol, and many others. It's just that you and Soulman add nothing I'm afraid. Never have, never will.

 

[JCL666]

This isn't anything new and it's pretty tame compared to the vitriol and threats aimed at Obama and his family throughout his entire time as president.