US Elections: Post-Mortem Blame Games

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Ariadne23 said:

What do you all think? Obama seemed like he met a person other than who he expected to meet, maybe.

With Trump, any time he hangs out with anyone his natural salesman empathy comes to the fore and he deeply respects them and likes them. This is why you could predict how he'd react to things to a certain degree simply by who he had been talking with. Manafort likes Russia and the Ukraine? Great, sanctions vs. Russia are off the table. Someone said that Obama is doing a great job with his immigration plan? Great, instead of getting rid of everyone we'll get rid of the criminals just like Obama, but moreso. 

I think the best thing that could possibly happen is that Obama becomes deep personal friends with Trump and hangs out with him wherever he goes. 

[Altherion]

Here's an interesting article about Trump as an antihero:

Quote

 

Fully six in 10 voters thought Trump unqualified for the office — which is almost the exact same as the percentage that said he lacked the right temperament, that he was untrustworthy and that they did not view him favorably. This included significant percentages of Americans who voted for him anyway.

...

There was a time when we had to really admire our heroes, on screen and in politics. But TV and movies these days are filled with antiheroes like Walter White or the Underwoods, characters we’d never have over to dinner but who we find mesmerizing nonetheless, in part because there’s always the looming question of whether they can yet be something better than they are.

So why not a president who demeans women, who doesn’t pay taxes and never says he’s sorry. We don’t have to love him, right? We only have to imagine who he might yet become.

 

I think there is something to this. The purely good characters in fiction have been replaced by flawed ones and the flawed ones by antiheroes which straddle the line between good and bad. It's rare to find an honorable political leader even in fiction. So, why not give Trump a chance?

[IheartIheartTesla]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Which, if it turns out that way, would certainly be better than a lot of the alternatives. On the hand, it does look like all climate change action is going to be gutted, which long-term is the worst possible action Trump can do. 

For that reason alone I think his Presidency will be a disaster, since, to paraphrase  someone wise, I think global warming is an existential crisis that threatens us and future generations.

Everything else is (sort of) reversible.

[Red Tiger]

2 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Here's an interesting article about Trump as an antihero:

I think there is something to this. The purely good characters in fiction have been replaced by flawed ones and the flawed ones by antiheroes which straddle the line between good and bad. It's rare to find an honorable political leader even in fiction. So, why not give Trump a chance?

Yeah, no. Im not trusting a guy who blames everything going wrong in America on a minority, hypocritically calls out China's practices while he himself constantly does business with them and on the record admits to assaulting women.

[Guess who's back]

5 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Those are the same vids

oh, the second was meant this

He is back at attacking Trump supporters and also has standing ovations for the riots. Distasteful 

[Red Tiger]

Just now, Guess who's back said:

oh, the second was meant this

He is back at attacking Trump supporters and also has standing ovations for the riots. Distasteful 

Okay, why does a comedian's opinion matter to you? I mean I get it if Jon Stewart can get under a conservative's skin as he actually takes this shit seriously now and then, but other than him?

 

[Kalbear]

Her friend is in a similar boat as my family is.  

 

[Guess who's back]

3 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Okay, why does a comedian's opinion matter to you? I mean I get it if Jon Stewart can get under a conservative's skin as he actually takes this shit seriously now and then, but other than him?

 

No I don't even care. I just ask what is wrong with him? Day before talks about unity and now is back at dividing. I don't see any logic lmao. How I see these videos you ask? They are trending on youtube

[DunderMifflin]

I kind of like that Trump is so distrusted, people are ready to riot now at the slightest curveball. 

If Hillary won there would major complacency right now. Any sort of protesting would either not be reported or chalked up to bitter racism.

 

 

I'll join a riot if that fat fuk Christie tries to halt marijuana progress.

[Red Tiger]

1 minute ago, DunderMifflin said:

I kind of like that Trump is so distrusted, people are ready to riot now at the slightest curveball. 

If Hillary won there would major complacency right now. Any sort of protesting would either not be reported or chalked up to bitter racism.

Nope, not true. There were plenty of reports that the conservatives werent just gonna let this shit slide, even if Hillary won the election

[felice]

2 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I think forcing the person who is literally representative of everyone to consider Rural and Urban interests is a good thing.  The Senate is merely a portion of the Legislative branch and can't act on their own.  Presidents elected only by Urban areas is a terrible idea.

I think forcing the person who is literally representative of everyone to consider straight and queer interests is a good thing. Presidents elected only by straight voters is a terrible idea. So we should create a virtual state for queer voters and give it 538 votes in the electoral college so it's on an equal footing with all the straight states. Does that sound like a good idea to you?

[Mexal]

Guess the "he's already softened up on the Muslim ban" can't be used as a talking point now.

 

[Littlefingers In The Air]

12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Here's an interesting article about Trump as an antihero:

I think there is something to this. The purely good characters in fiction have been replaced by flawed ones and the flawed ones by antiheroes which straddle the line between good and bad. It's rare to find an honorable political leader even in fiction. So, why not give Trump a chance?

Because he's a fascist demagogue who's giving a voice and power to the sort of people who'd like to dine with David Duke.

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, Red Tiger said:

Nope, not true. There were plenty of reports that the conservatives werent just gonna let this shit slide, even if Hillary won the election

 

1 minute ago, Red Tiger said:

Nope, not true. There were plenty of reports that the conservatives werent just gonna let this shit slide, even if Hillary won the election

 

1 minute ago, Red Tiger said:

 

And it would be easily dismissed as racism. It would not be the same thing.

[Commodore]

confused by Colbert

he says we are more divided than ever, is he suggesting we unite around Trump to end the division?

unity is code for falling in line, and has no place in a pluralistic, representative republic

I am not persuaded by protests, but I love that they exist. I want Schumer/Pelosi to do everything they can to block everything Trump does. The loyal opposition deserves representation. Screw unity. 

I think in the first video Colbert was masking his anger and contempt with expressions of sorrow. The second video from the next day is his true nature. 

[Red Tiger]

Just now, DunderMifflin said:

 

 

And it would be easily dismissed as racism. It would not be the same thing.

You are not getting what im saying, there were reports of Trump's supports planning to rally out on the streets to protest this, you know his second amendment-loving supporters. They were planning to take actual action. I can dismiss a gun-toting Republican as a racist, that wont stop him from taking angry action out of frustration with his man losing.

[The Anti-Targ]

I don't know why people are hand-wringing about the sorry state of the Democratic party. Hillary Clinton won the NPV, she got the most votes. And between 3 states she could have won which Obama won (FL, PA, MI), she only needed to have 101,000 people vote for her rather than Trump out of a total combined number of votes of about 20 million people. And the pick up needed is even less if you drop FL and replace it with WI. Hell, if Hillary had said, screw Florida, lets shore up the rust belt and coal belt she probably would have got those mere 10's of thousands of votes she needed to win.

Nationally Hillary won the usual Democrat demographics: the poor vote went to her, the college educated vote went to her, the female vote went to her, the minority vote went to her, the non-christian vote went to her, the immigrant vote went to her. How hard will it be, if Trump doesn't deliver on the things that convinced a fraction of the voter base to vote for him rather than Hillary, for Democrats to pick up a couple hundred K more votes in states that have gone Democratic more often or as often as Republican?

The democrats didn't win the senate, but they did pick up 2 seats.

Complacency would be bad, assuming that you will walk back into the White House in 4 years by not taking a different approach and simply nominating someone who doesn't have the same baggage would be risky. But self-flagellation isn't necessary either.

Nominating Michelle Obama, assuming she would actually want it, would be bad. While Trump won based on no experience in elected office he had an "I'm a rich and successful business man" narrative at work for him. I'm not sure "I'm highly educated, very intelligent and very articulate" has the same play for someone with no time as an elected representative under the belt. Even though logically those qualification should count for a lot.

[Commodore]

Just now, The Anti-Targ said:

I don't know why people are hand-wringing about the sorry state of the Democratic party. 

downballot

[Altherion]

18 minutes ago, Red Tiger said:

Yeah, no. Im not trusting a guy who blames everything going wrong in America on a minority, hypocritically calls out China's practices while he himself constantly does business with them and on the record admits to assaulting women.

Obviously, most of the 60% who thought he wasn't qualified felt the way you do -- but enough of them for Trump to win did not.

[Mudguard]

29 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Michelle Obama is better at rousing speeches than Barrack is. 

She's a light up the room person, Hillary just isn't that.

That's not really an indication of how great a President she would be but it would certainly get more votes than Hillary. I'd vote for her, it's safe to assume certain positions she would have based on Barry's politics.

I would definitely vote for Michelle Obama if she chooses the enter politics, but alas, there doesn't seem to be any indication that she's interested.  But maybe she'll change her mind given Clinton's unexpected defeat to Trump.  There's a big void to fill in the Democratic Party right now.  Her only potential negative would be lack of experience, but I think experience is overrated when it comes to being able to do a good job as President, senator, or representative.