Are we gonna get Trump for another term?

[Arnox]

At this rate, he's probably gonna get impeached. But I guess if it's not him, it's probably gonna be Hilary. :tdown:

Maybe it'll be The Bernie Strikes Back.

 

[bluegate]

Another term of that buffoon?

Although I'm enjoying the comedic aspects of his presidency, I can't say I'm too thrilled about the idiotic aspects. I'd rather not see his face for an additional 4 years.

 

[Arnox]

Another term of that buffoon?

Although I'm enjoying the comedic aspects of his presidency, I can't say I'm too thrilled about the idiotic aspects. I'd rather not see his face for an additional 4 years.

We can still laugh at his twitter without him being president.

 

[Monoochrom]

Since every President has had a second Term as long as I have lived and because too many people on the left have simply doubled down, as troubling as it is, yes I think he'll probably get another term. If only because I currently see no reason why the current situation would be a worse environment for him, he was obviously going to be bad from the start, so anything he fucks up probably won't even matter.

 

[Vendor-Lazarus]

Most likely. If he is interested in another go.
The divide is still going strong, but the push-back against the Ctrl-Left grows even stronger.
That also means that actual Neo-Nazis and racists will sadly rise as well, but I'd rather have diversity of thought than not.

 

[PointlessKnowledge]

I sorta feel that if he doesn't get impeached, a health issue is going to force him out/kill him. He takes terrible care of himself, eats very poorly and is a big ball of stress. Trump being physically unable to continue being president is a real possibility, at least to me.

 

[Arnox]

I sorta feel that if he doesn't get impeached, a health issue is going to force him out/kill him. He takes terrible care of himself, eats very poorly and is a big ball of stress. Trump being physically unable to continue being president is a real possibility, at least to me.

That's a very interesting thought actually. Usually I never consider health issues as they're almost never a factor.

 

[PointlessKnowledge]

I sorta feel that if he doesn't get impeached, a health issue is going to force him out/kill him. He takes terrible care of himself, eats very poorly and is a big ball of stress. Trump being physically unable to continue being president is a real possibility, at least to me.

That's a very interesting thought actually. Usually I never consider health issues as they're almost never a factor.

Most people on the campaign trail don't eat two Big Macs, two Filet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malted as a regular meal.

And while not common, there have been deaths of presidents due to health issues.

Also, Trump is the oldest person to become president, which also does him no favour, with his lifestyle choices.

 

[PsychedelicDiamond]

Ich hate to be that guy but I habe my doubts there will be proper democratic elections after 4 years of Trump and I'm pretty sure there won't be after possible 8 years.

 

[Arnox]

Ich hate to be that guy but I habe my doubts there will be proper democratic elections after 4 years of Trump and I'm pretty sure there won't be after possible 8 years.

I'm seriously starting to think that the whole thing is rigged anyway. Hilary getting all those fucking votes? I don't believe it.

I'm not saying that she wouldn't get some, but it should have been in the minority definitely.

 

[Pyrian]

That is a frighteningly disconnected assessment. Hillary getting more votes was the expected result from the vast majority of polling attempts from a wide variety of sources (many decidedly right-wing). She got fewer votes than overall expected, and not by all that much (well within the expected polling error). And that's not even getting into the inanity of accusing the losing side of outright rigging the vote.

 

[Arnox]

That is a frighteningly disconnected assessment. Hillary getting more votes was the expected result from the vast majority of polling attempts from a wide variety of sources (many decidedly right-wing). She got fewer votes than overall expected, and not by all that much (well within the expected polling error). And that's not even getting into the inanity of accusing the losing side of outright rigging the vote.

Yeah, but let me ask you a question. How many people have you met that were actual Hilary supporters? Because in my entire life, I have met ZERO. Everyone I've met has never had a nice thing to say about her, IRL and ESPECIALLY online.

 

[Runic Rogue]

barring legal shenanigans or a health issue, I would say definitely.

The progressive left is alienating anyone not firmly decided with their thought-police tactics and often hypocritical stances. It supports remain strong on the new york and cali fronts, but everywhere else they are eroding support fast. Add into that, even among dem supporters, people feel the party has been hijacked compared to even a few years ago and are disillusions and unhappy. It went from things like the occupy movement into this obstructionist, constant bashing of trump that is offensively financially supported by a lot of the same sort of corporate jackals called out. It is a very dreary, draining, negative campaign against him for the last 2 years, no sign of stopping, and a constant barrage of embarrassing failures and outright dishonest attempts to undermine. The constant "russia" circus has been a series of overly-promised conspiracies followed by embarrassments and revealed federal agent overreach and mismanagement that even validated Trumps wild claims earlier on, with the media opposed to him trying poorly to cover and spin them into anything to save face. Trust in the media also has plummeted and politics is more bitterly divisive that it has been in a long time, with blame often falling on the shoulders of a media blatantly political in motivations. The dems have no one they can put forth to fix those problems that I can think of and have no driving cause to champion beside the one that lost them the 2016 election of "anyone but trump".

On the opposite end, trump has fulfilled some promises and managed middling success in spite of the constant barrage of negativity. The result of that is the ability to up-sell those successes as being even more than they are just because they were in spite of a political party actively and openly trying to sabotage his every effort. Demonization has backfired and made him a sympathetic underdog of sorts as he is seen as a bumbling fool attacked by the already resoundingly hated washington machine, and the media barrage on him has resulted in such an apathy toward whatever breaking story that nothing short of him actually being impeached is going to make anyone who doesn't already hate him start to do so.

In the end, you have a party that is overreaching, representing the worst sort of corruption and special interest manipulation in washington, and lacking any uniting cause to champion or charismatic personality to rally around, facing off against a fool demonized and attacked constantly, and still managing surprising victories.

Trump will win unless things change.

 

[Monoochrom]

Ich hate to be that guy but I habe my doubts there will be proper democratic elections after 4 years of Trump and I'm pretty sure there won't be after possible 8 years.

I can't roll my eyes as hard as this deserves.

 

[Silvanus]

barring legal shenanigans or a health issue, I would say definitely.

The progressive left is alienating anyone not firmly decided with their thought-police tactics and often hypocritical stances. It supports remain strong on the new york and cali fronts, but everywhere else they are eroding support fast. Add into that, even among dem supporters, people feel the party has been hijacked compared to even a few years ago and are disillusions and unhappy. It went from things like the occupy movement into this obstructionist, constant bashing of trump that is offensively financially supported by a lot of the same sort of corporate jackals called out. It is a very dreary, draining, negative campaign against him for the last 2 years, no sign of stopping, and a constant barrage of embarrassing failures and outright dishonest attempts to undermine.

All of these elements are things that seem to have worked in Trump's favour. Hypocrisy, obstructionism, negative campaigning... all of it.

Why would this impact the Democrats so forcefully and not the Republicans? Do you believe the Democratic voterbase have higher standards, and are therefore more likely to be turned off by the above?

I'm seriously starting to think that the whole thing is rigged anyway. Hilary getting all those fucking votes? I don't believe it.

I'm not saying that she wouldn't get some, but it should have been in the minority definitely.

She was a shoddy candidate, but not terribly worse than most Presidential candidates for the past several decades.

That aside, there is no evidence whatsoever of a rigged Presidential election. There is plenty of evidence of exceptionally poor judgement, awful priorities, and general ignorance in the population, however. The latter is an obvious explanation for the state of American democracy today.

 

[Runic Rogue]

barring legal shenanigans or a health issue, I would say definitely.

The progressive left is alienating anyone not firmly decided with their thought-police tactics and often hypocritical stances. It supports remain strong on the new york and cali fronts, but everywhere else they are eroding support fast. Add into that, even among dem supporters, people feel the party has been hijacked compared to even a few years ago and are disillusions and unhappy. It went from things like the occupy movement into this obstructionist, constant bashing of trump that is offensively financially supported by a lot of the same sort of corporate jackals called out. It is a very dreary, draining, negative campaign against him for the last 2 years, no sign of stopping, and a constant barrage of embarrassing failures and outright dishonest attempts to undermine.

All of these elements are things that seem to have worked in Trump's favour. Hypocrisy, obstructionism, negative campaigning... all of it.

Why would this impact the Democrats so forcefully and not the Republicans? Do you believe the Democratic voterbase have higher standards, and are therefore more likely to be turned off by the above?

Actually, that is partially the point I am making, yes.

Considering the dem's now run on a platform of moral superiority as demonstrated by using outrage every 5 minutes, it is more the problem with hypocrisy coming from the people seen as ineffective bullies. Trump looks like an idiot, and is excused for his failings in some respect because he is seen as an idiot.

It ends up a case of trump is expected to behave in that fashion, while the dems are expected to be better as viewed by their voters. When they aren't, they lose the people who would vote for them on that basis. This compounds when they look at trump as a fool being attacked by hypocritical and corrupt politics and still succeeding in spite of it. Thus they are more likely to listen to his rhetoric, if not agree with some of his statements, especially if he too is calling out the behavior on the left. The first part costs the dems voters, the second increases the chance of them siding against them.

Also, for all the demonizing, Trump came out as the far lesser of the two evils in the last election in all those respects. His campaign was very negative, but he still championed issues such as immigration fixes, bringing back trade and jobs, and dealing with isis, with the media and opposing politicians trying to tear him down because of those stances helping reaffirm them as things he was championing. His obstructionism, well, I don't think he was so much as the republican party, and his being a new face and not part of that machine there kept him separate from that criticism. Only his hypocrisy would have been on par as an issue, and it is sadly fitting that because the media has cried wolf so many times, they can't hammer that point worth a damn anymore.

The modern progressive left has embraced so many of the things that they opposed a decade ago. Restricting freedoms, domestic spying, supporting corporate interests... it is like they have become the new conservatives with regard to those issues, and it is no wonder that they lost to an anti-establishment candidate last election.

I'm seriously starting to think that the whole thing is rigged anyway. Hilary getting all those fucking votes? I don't believe it.

I'm not saying that she wouldn't get some, but it should have been in the minority definitely.

She was a shoddy candidate, but not terribly worse than most Presidential candidates for the past several decades.

That aside, there is no evidence whatsoever of a rigged Presidential election. There is plenty of evidence of exceptionally poor judgement, awful priorities, and general ignorance in the population, however. The latter is an obvious explanation for the state of American democracy today.

Blaming the election on an ignorant populous when hillary had full control of what her campaign put forth, and obviously favorable media coverage and handling from most major news networks, comes off as burying one's head in the sand. At that point it would be entirely a failing on her and her party to sell her and inform the public about her. Instead, she concentrated on a constantly negative campaign against trump, burned bridges with underhanded strategies, and it cost her.

 

[Arnox]

That aside, there is no evidence whatsoever of a rigged Presidential election. There is plenty of evidence of exceptionally poor judgement, awful priorities, and general ignorance in the population, however. The latter is an obvious explanation for the state of American democracy today.

Why is it such a far cry that the elections are rigged? What's the ratio of outspoken Hilary supporters you've talked to vs. her outspoken opponents that you've talked to?

 

[Signa]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_Og06RD8MM[/youtube]
As long as people like this represent the democrats, and they get applause for saying it, they are going to keep losing elections.

As for Trump, I'm going to be very shocked if he doesn't get his reelection. I voted for him because I wanted someone that wasn't a career politician, and while Trump wasn't my first choice for that role, it's what we got. He has disappointed a few times, but on the whole, he's shaking things up in ways that only he can. I vividly remember scoffing about Trump suggesting he'd run in 2012, but by the time 2016 was around, I had done a complete 180 on the idea and was actually excited. I wasn't even particularly upset with Obama either, but Trump's flagrant disregard for the orthodoxy instantly sold me on him. In those 4 years, things had slowly got a lot more oppressive than I had realized, and Trump became the necessary answer.

Side note: I've been playing a game with myself. CNN plays in my work's lunch room. If the name Trump isn't on the ticker at the bottom of the screen, I win. It's been weeks, and I've only won once. I think people just have a negative opinion of him because they keep watching the media talk about him like he's a Kardashian. They aren't going to cover things that he did that are good. They just want to keep the hate flowing.

 

[Silvanus]

Actually, that is partially the point I am making, yes.

Considering the dem's now run on a platform of moral superiority as demonstrated by using outrage every 5 minutes, it is more the problem with hypocrisy coming from the people seen as ineffective bullies. Trump looks like an idiot, and is excused for his failings in some respect because he is seen as an idiot.

It ends up a case of trump is expected to behave in that fashion, while the dems are expected to be better as viewed by their voters. When they aren't, they lose the people who would vote for them on that basis. This compounds when they look at trump as a fool being attacked by hypocritical and corrupt politics and still succeeding in spite of it. Thus they are more likely to listen to his rhetoric, if not agree with some of his statements, especially if he too is calling out the behavior on the left. The first part costs the dems voters, the second increases the chance of them siding against them.

Both parties assert moral superiority (if not explicitly, then implicitly). This has been the case, also, since the advent of democracy. Parties decry the moral and ethical impact of their opponents' policies so routinely, that this is in no ways unique. Moral argument is a foundation of public debate (as it should be).

The only differentiating factor is that recently, people seem to have a greater problem with the tone from the Democratic Party than in the past. Yet their campaign ads and public statements remain less moralising and less condemning than those from the Republican Party.

Also, for all the demonizing, Trump came out as the far lesser of the two evils in the last election in all those respects. His campaign was very negative, but he still championed issues such as immigration fixes, bringing back trade and jobs, and dealing with isis, with the media and opposing politicians trying to tear him down because of those stances helping reaffirm them as things he was championing.

I cannot even begin to take this idea seriously. His campaign was so much more relentlessly negative than anything I've seen, from either party, for decades. It was constant accusation, and almost nothing but: referring to immigrants (and not just illegal immigrants, as was afterwards claimed) as "rapists"; peddling the racist birther conspiracy theory; peddling the anti-vaccination conspiracy theory; calling specific people "dogs", "ugly", "mad". His rhetoric was more aggressive, more hostile by far than anything from the other side-- and also anything from the past several Republican campaigns.

I voted for him because I wanted someone that wasn't a career politician, and while Trump wasn't my first choice for that role, it's what we got.

A career con-man and fraudster is preferable to a career politician?

Why is it such a far cry that the elections are rigged? What's the ratio of outspoken Hilary supporters you've talked to vs. her outspoken opponents that you've talked to?

It wouldn't be a "far cry". But you need actual evidence. There is none of that; analyses quite consistently show that the amount of voter fraud is absolutely negligible, and there's been no strong indication of any other major electoral irregularities.

I have no idea what the ratio is. I'm judging it on the campaign material (ads, etc) and statements, speeches etc that I go out of my way to find during a foreign electoral cycle.

I've seen far more people talk about Clinton as the lesser of two evils, than people being genuinely excited for her. For Trump, on the other hand, I see near-constant aggression and belittling.

 

[Arnox]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_Og06RD8MM[/youtube]
As long as people like this represent the democrats, and they get applause for saying it, they are going to keep losing elections.

As for Trump, I'm going to be very shocked if he doesn't get his reelection. I voted for him because I wanted someone that wasn't a career politician, and while Trump wasn't my first choice for that role, it's what we got. He has disappointed a few times, but on the whole, he's shaking things up in ways that only he can. I vividly remember scoffing about Trump suggesting he'd run in 2012, but by the time 2016 was around, I had done a complete 180 on the idea and was actually excited. I wasn't even particularly upset with Obama either, but Trump's flagrant disregard for the orthodoxy instantly sold me on him. In those 4 years, things had slowly got a lot more oppressive than I had realized, and Trump became the necessary answer.

Side note: I've been playing a game with myself. CNN plays in my work's lunch room. If the name Trump isn't on the ticker at the bottom of the screen, I win. It's been weeks, and I've only won once. I think people just have a negative opinion of him because they keep watching the media talk about him like he's a Kardashian. They aren't going to cover things that he did that are good. They just want to keep the hate flowing.

Trump is a pretty 50/50 split for me in terms of what I agree with him on. The thing is though, even when I do agree with him, I swear, he puts on the worst kind of presentation on his fucking Twitter. It's literally like he wants people to hate him. Then again, Twitter's just cancer, period.

Although he was responsible for appointing Ajit Pai to the FCC and supported him, so fuck Trump just for that.

It wouldn't be a "far cry". But you need actual evidence. There is none of that; analyses quite consistently show that the amount of voter fraud is absolutely negligible, and there's been no strong indication of any other major electoral irregularities.

I have no idea what the ratio is. I'm judging it on the campaign material (ads, etc) and statements, speeches etc that I go out of my way to find during a foreign electoral cycle.

I've seen far more people talk about Clinton as the lesser of two evils, than people being genuinely excited for her. For Trump, on the other hand, I see near-constant aggression and belittling.

I never said I had any firm evidence. I was just heavily willing to bet that there was fraud. Not that I think Trump wouldn't have won anyway, ironically. It's the amount of votes Hilary got that made me raise my eyebrows a lot.

 

[Silvanus]

I never said I had any firm evidence. I was just heavily willing to bet that there was fraud. Not that I think Trump wouldn't have won anyway, ironically. It's the amount of votes Hilary got that made me raise my eyebrows a lot.

People find it hard to understand when other people don't share their priorities and politics. That, I think, is the real reason those eyebrows are getting raised.

 

[Arnox]

People find it hard to understand when other people don't share their priorities and politics. That, I think, is the real reason those eyebrows are getting raised.

Except I didn't vote for Trump at all. In fact, things happened almost exactly as I thought they were going to. 50% good stuff and 50% total shit. I think Trump would have won anyway, not because I want him to win or even agree with him mostly, but because I saw a ton of people were angry and Hilary was almost universally hated everywhere I looked.

 

[Silvanus]

Except I didn't vote for Trump at all. In fact, things happened almost exactly as I thought they were going to. 50% good stuff and 50% total shit. I think Trump would have won anyway, not because I want him to win or even agree with him mostly, but because I saw a ton of people were angry and Hilary was almost universally hated everywhere I looked.

Right, but if you find it more inexplicable that one candidate would earn votes but not the other, then there's some degree of personal preference guiding this judgement, no?

 

[Arnox]

Right, but if you find it more inexplicable that one candidate would earn votes but not the other, then there's some degree of personal preference guiding this judgement, no?

What if I said no?

 

[Silvanus]

What if I said no?

Well, if you yourself do not believe it any less likely that one candidate would be a turn off than the other, then I'm wondering why you think high numbers for Clinton indicate a rigged election, but not high numbers for Trump.