Jump to content

Recommended Posts

On the bright side of all of this, Hillary Clinton's political career is over and hopefully she will disappear into the shadows. I always thought it would be a shame to have her shatter the highest glass ceiling. Would love to see an authentic women who isn't beholden to special interests like Elizabeth Warren crush Trump in 2020 and become the first female President.

It really does say a lot about Hillary that she couldn't manage to defeat this fucking clown. The reality is that against practically any other Democratic candidate, Trump would have been handily defeated.

Nothing we can do now but give Trump a fair chance to govern and call him out when he does wrong. I'm most interested to see his dynamic with other world leaders, specifically his polar opposites in Trudeau and EPN and how the future of NAFTA will play out.

One of the things forgotten in all of this is who will be in Trump's cabinet. He already has an evolution denier and believer in gay-conversion therapy as his VP, and bigoted fools/fear-mongers like Christie, Gingrich, Giuliani and Palin will likely be his closest advisors.

I'm also interested to see how this all works out for Paul Ryan. I think he's kind of fucked. No doubt in my mind that Trump is going to try and destroy his political career because of the lack of support he showed during the election. Trump always has to get even with those who wrong him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 105
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hear, Hear Rob! I try to be moderate. I try to see the bright side, the glass half full. When the results and implications became clear, I tried not to spit the dummy, to lash out, to be a poor l

What to say? I'm feeling shocked, gutted and sick at the moment.

All I can say is very dark days are going to come, specially for inmigrants. I'm afraid this will only make certain people like Le Pen in France, for example, get a huge boost. Looks like intolerance,

16 minutes ago, ofan said:

It really does say a lot about Hillary that she couldn't manage to defeat this fucking clown. The reality is that against practically any other Democratic candidate, Trump would have been handily defeated.

Like who? Bernie (old fart) Sanders, who's "supporters" in the end "couldn't find themselves" to vote for Hillary, cuz he was going to "help them with their student loan debts". :rolleyes:

And despite that, & many other things "rigged" against her, Hillary still managed to win the POPULAR vote, but got screwed over (like Al Gore did back in 2000) by a two-century old, outdated POS system known as the "electoral college".

No matter who would've ran against Donald Duck, it's quite clear, that all the hate mongers had their minds made up, & were handed the election on a "rigged" sliver-platter.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ofan said:

On the bright side of all of this, Hillary Clinton's political career is over and hopefully she will disappear into the shadows. I always thought it would be a shame to have her shatter the highest glass ceiling. Would love to see an authentic women who isn't beholden to special interests like Elizabeth Warren crush Trump in 2020 and become the first female President.

I never got the "hate" that Hillary copped. I've actually been an admirer of her's since Bill's first term. But then again, I never understood the visceral hatred Julia Gillard provoked in many down here. I'm probably a sucker for a good woman leader.

Maybe, just maybe, any other Democrat could have beaten Trump. But I'm not so sure. We've seen the wave that propelled him to power so often now around the world this year. And as regards Warren - yeah, I like her too. But as one of our commentators said of her chances, hypothetically yesterday or potentially in 2020, considering what we've just witnessed, is a liberal Massachusetts Harvard Law professor really gonna be the answer to changing over disaffected rust belt white men's attitudes to the "establishment"? 

Edited by Sir Rols
Link to post
Share on other sites

So looking towards 2020, who at this early stage would look like potential democratic challengers to Trump?

Clinton again?

Michelle Obama?

a bush?

Al Gore?

Someone young?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kanye!

 

In all honestly, it'll have to be someone new. Clinton's spent. damaged goods now. Ditto Gore. Michelle? I don't see her as a political player. Sanders will be even older and grumpier by then.

Actually, maybe the real challenge could be from the Republican side with a Bush. 

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah i guess so, i think alot of the democrats issues was the message. popular and well literate as she is, mIchelle again represents the political elite and dynastic presidential family.

I think the Canadian approach would work for them, someone young, attractive, full of ideas enthusiasm and relevant to all parts of american society.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't been on here in a long time and this loss hurts so bad. All of the progress made under President Obama is going to made undone by this "man". I will never call him my President. Anyone who uses fear as a weapon doesn't deserve to be President. Watching Hillary concede today made my heart sank, she's done so much and doesn't deserve to go like this.  Love will trump hate this is just a speed bump in the road. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

As for 2020 candidates some possibilities come to mind- 

Bernie- would generate excitement and get blue collar vote back, but he's old not sure he will try again

Elizabeth Warren- another progressive like Bernie but not sure the country is ready for a woman as sexist as it sounds

Corey Booker- young and promising face in the Democratic Party 

Michelle Obama- this excites me the most but she doesn't want to get into politics but that could change with Trump. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, FYI said:

Other than old man Bernie, IDK what "other" Democrats that could've run they're talking about, cuz he was the only other plausible candidate on the Democratic side, & he wouldn't have won, either. 

people were looking for a revolution, not establishment politics as usual. it would have been a very different race with bernie at the top of the ticket. in rust belt states that went to trump by 60k votes, i'm not so sure bernie (who is not deranged) couldn't have lured some old union households to his side and galvanized campuses a la obama. considering hillary didn't exactly break the bank on minority voters and lost the male vote handily, i don't have any reason to suspect he wouldn't have done just as well or likely better, even with clinton 's slight edge with women. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Scotguy said:

A very good piece on what went wrong for Clinton

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37922959

 

 

Doesn't solve the baffling mystery of what could possibly have gone right for her opponent! <_<

Link to post
Share on other sites

The younger, college-grad, people were looking for a "revolution" in the Bernie camp. I also didn't see Bernie as having a "galvanizing" Obama x-factor, either. Yeah, sure at college campasus, but that's because these *kids* thought they were going to get "free tuition" outta the deal. 

He was just a stuffy old man. I also don't know how, especially the older generation, old school mentality, Christian conservative voters would've ultimately felt about voting for the first Jewish president. I didn't find him "exciting" at all. I found to be quite abrasive actually, especially when attacking Hillary. And I find him responsible actually, for undermining Hillary with his former supporters in the end. And that's another factor which cost her votes, which was disgusting. He may not be "deranged", but he definitely seems like he has a 100 cups of a coffee a day, with his all in your face attitude.

One things for sure though, if Bernie had been the Democratic nominee, it woulda made for far more entertaining debates & jabs on the campaign trail, with two stuffy old farts going at each other! :lol: But really, claims that Bernie could've "handily defeated" Donald is quite a stretch, to say the least. And now, just like post-Olympic bid races analysis, we'll just never know how Bernie would've faired. Cuz it's over now & we're left the Duck in the Oval Office.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, FYI said:

The younger, college-grad, people were looking for a "revolution" in the Bernie camp. I also didn't see Bernie as having a "galvanizing" Obama x-factor, either. Yeah, sure at college campasus, but that's because these *kids* thought they were going to get "free tuition" outta the deal. 

He was just a stuffy old man. I also don't know how, especially the older generation, old school mentality, Christian conservative voters would've ultimately felt about voting for the first Jewish president. I didn't find him "exciting" at all. I found to be quite abrasive actually, especially when attacking Hillary. And I find him responsible actually, for undermining Hillary with his former supporters in the end. And that's another factor which cost her votes, which was disgusting. He may not be "deranged", but he definitely seems like he has a 100 cups of a coffee a day, with his all in your face attitude.

One things for sure though, if Bernie had been the Democratic nominee, it woulda made for far more entertaining debates & jabs on the campaign trail, with two stuffy old farts going at each other! :lol: But really, claims that Bernie could've "handily defeated" Donald is quite a stretch, to say the least. And now, just like post-Olympic bid races analysis, we'll just never know how Bernie would've faired. Cuz it's over now & we're left the Duck in the Oval Office.


i think you vastly underestimate his galvanizing appeal. (many people did the same to trump and look where it's gotten them). as for his jewish heritage, he never really claimed it, never made a big issue of it. al gore won the popular vote with a truly jewish VP. it's one of those non-issues people make a big deal about but that doesn't faze voters (much like sexual assault, apparently). 

as for his demeanor? you make entirely too much of that considering who he was up against. that, at least, would have been a wash, at best.

i never said, or ever would say, that bernie could have defeated trump handily. you're right in that we just don't really know.

what we do know is that bernie, not hillary won wisc. and mich. in the primaries, and that she never bothered paying them them the least attention during the campaign. we also know that economic issues, which clinton downplayed to some extent, resonated heavily with those voters. she never spoke to their particular troubles and talked airily of clean energy, which got her nowhere with them. we know that clinton was seen as decidedly establishment while sanders and trump were not.

trump vs. sanders in mich., wisc., and penn. arguing a rigged system, which they could authentically claim to not be a part of, and offering their own solutions would have led to some very different conversations. business as usual, establishment politics just wasn't going to cut it this time. but as you say, we'll never know if the rust belt would have resonated with sanders' populist message, although he certainly went toe-to-toe with clinton in the primaries. was it all about revanchism and white identity politics? i doubt it considering these were the same states that voted in obama twice. it came down to economics and clinton just wasn't speaking the same language.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Sir Rols said:

I never got the "hate" that Hillary copped. I've actually been an admirer of her's since Bill's first term. But then again, I never understood the visceral hatred Julia Gillard provoked in many down here. I'm probably a sucker for a good woman leader.

Machiavellianism is not an admired quality in leaders. Even if they are cold blooded they have to at least pretend to be warm and compassionate. A former Walmart lawyer with a marriage of convenience and a willingness to do whatever it takes to grab the reigns of power is not the right person to run in an anti-establishment race.

In fairness, though, I am still stunned that she lost. She did not lose to Trump because there were too many bigoted voters. (Trump lost almost two million votes compared to a Mormon Mitt Romney who was viewed with suspicion by many Christian conservatives.) She lost because she could not get enough women and minorities to vote for her and lost seven million of Obama's votes. She could not get women and Hispanics to vote against Donald Trump.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/09/hillary-clinton-failed-to-win-over-black-hispanic-and-female-vot/

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nacre said:

Machiavellianism is not an admired quality in leaders. Even if they are cold blooded they have to at least pretend to be warm and compassionate. A former Walmart lawyer with a marriage of convenience and a willingness to do whatever it takes to grab the reigns of power is not the right person to run in an anti-establishment race.

In fairness, though, I am still stunned that she lost. She did not lose to Trump because there were too many bigoted voters. (Trump lost almost two million votes compared to a Mormon Mitt Romney who was viewed with suspicion by many Christian conservatives.) She lost because she could not get enough women and minorities to vote for her and lost seven million of Obama's votes. She could not get women and Hispanics to vote against Donald Trump.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11/09/hillary-clinton-failed-to-win-over-black-hispanic-and-female-vot/

I'm not going to make a case that you or anyone ese should have found Hillary "likeable". Even if, in the case of both Hillary and Gillard, people who personally know them have often pointed out their personal warmth is at odds with their wider reputation or percepections. How we respond to people, particularly public figures most of us only know through the media, is entirely subjective. I just personally liked what I saw in Hillary. And I realise that puts me at odds with many others, but that's how it is.

Machiavellianism is something, however, I think that any successful politician has to have mastered in order to be successful. You really think Hillary is overtly Machiavellian, but Trump was not??? Trump was as openly, almost comedically, Machiavellian as any politician we've seen through history, yet that didn't seem to dull his admiration in the quarters that flocked to him. Even for seemingly idealistic leaders, like an Obama or a Kennedy, they've known how to play and master the game to get where they got.

You're probably right, though, that it's not so much the machiavellianism, but how they can overcome that and project themselves. I'm also not going to argue Hillary was not without her flaws. She was a stilted, awkward campaigner. She became too associated as the "establishment". She was careless too often and didn't seem to learn from her mistakes. At the end though, I'm saddened that her legacy as possibly one of the most competent women to have strutted the US political scene, is now indelibly tainted. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sir Rols said:

Machiavellianism is something, however, I think that any successful politician has to have mastered in order to be successful. You really think Hillary is overtly Machiavellian, but Trump was not???

Of course not. I voted for Clinton, after all. And the Democrats could have literally run a donkey for president and I would have voted for it instead of Trump.

But Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton for the democratic nomination eight years ago because he was charismatic and offered a vision of hope for the future. Bill Clinton was similarly charming.

Edited by Nacre
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, krow said:

i think you vastly underestimate his galvanizing appeal. (many people did the same to trump and look where it's gotten them). as for his jewish heritage, he never really claimed it, never made a big issue of it. al gore won the popular vote with a truly jewish VP. it's one of those non-issues people make a big deal about but that doesn't faze voters (much like sexual assault, apparently). 

Well, to each their own then. I just didn't like him. Just like some didn't like Hillary for whatever their reasons. Doesn't mean that it's right or wrong either way. 

As for Al Gore, his Jewish runningmate wasn't the one running for president. At times, the presidential candidate picks an adventurous runningmate to try to appeal to a broader audience, like John McCain did in picking that loon Sarah Palin.

7 hours ago, krow said:

as for his demeanor? you make entirely too much of that considering who he was up against. that, at least, would have been a wash, at best.

Do you mean when he was up against Hillary? How so? Cuz I think that's pretty off base. But again, to each their own then. 

8 hours ago, krow said:

never said, or ever would say, that bernie could have defeated trump handily. you're right in that we just don't really know. 

I didn't say you did. I was just speaking in general bcuz another poster said that "any other Democrat could've 'handily defeated' Trump". So I was just curious who were those "any other" candidates when Bernie was the only other one on the democratic side, & I wouldn't have described his chances as being as such.

8 hours ago, krow said:

what we do know is that bernie, not hillary won wisc. and mich. in the primaries, and that she never bothered paying them the least attention during the campaign.

Yeah, I do agree that her not going to those states was a mistake. Perhaps she was focusing more on those battleground states. But MI & WI obviously wouldn't have mattered for her either way in the end anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Kaine made a good accounting of himself this year.  Nice guy, but he comes from a smallish state.  The Democrats do not have another "star" player until it's Gavin Newsom's time.  But even Gavin will prove too liberal and lose as well.  It has to be a moderate Democrat from the South or the heart of the country -- exciting, dynamic and feisty; Christian family man with no baggage; perhaps a military hero of some sort.    

Michelle Obama's going to fare even worse than Hillary.   She's a death wish.  

Massachusetts's candidates?  They had their time with the Kennedys, because anyone after them, Dukakis, Kerry, even Mitt Romney, lost.  So will Elizabeth Warren.  Neither are the Minnesotans:  McCarthy, Humphrey, Mondale all lost.    

Maybe Lin-Manuel Miranda, the creator of HAMILTON?  

Edited by baron-pierreIV
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Watched a more "relaxed" Donald Trump on news tonight.

Dawning on him and everyone around him that massive job ahead.

Interesting that the all important trading markets have pretty much bounced and surged ahead...for now.

It will be when new global trading regulations proposed start to affect the huge American based corporate jug a noughts and their $$$.

I'm going to take a position of enjoying the ride for the next four years.

I believe he is winking at us and we could end up with a centrist administration with a slight right lean.

However he needs to calm the farm of extremist groups on all sides ASAP. The world needs a United States of America... not an Untied one.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Alexjc said:

Watched a more "relaxed" Donald Trump on news tonight.

Dawning on him and everyone around him that massive job ahead.

Interesting that the all important trading markets have pretty much bounced and surged ahead...for now.

It will be when new global trading regulations proposed start to affect the huge American based corporate jug a noughts and their $$$.

I'm going to take a position of enjoying the ride for the next four years.

I believe he is winking at us and we could end up with a centrist administration with a slight right lean.

However he needs to calm the farm of extremist groups on all sides ASAP. The world needs a United States of America... not an Untied one.

 

He is part of the extremists on one side and spent the last 12 months encouraging them!! He advocated violence at his own rallies FFS, so we now have an American President who doesn't even have the moral authority to tell violent protestors on his own streets to stop. Think about how extraordinary that is.

He's hired anti-gay Ken Blackwell to head up his domestic policy team and his VP is no better, we already know through his birther campaign he's willing to build a support base of racists and rile up anti-black sentiment if it happens to benefit him (f*ck any consequences), he's trying to get out of the Paris climate accord, and is today courting Farage and the Le Pens rather than any elected European leaders.

These are not the actions of a "centrist" or even "slight right leaning" President, and that he has the endorsement of the KKK should be a clue to that fact as well. These are the actions of an extremist who, even if he doesn't believe the things he says, is willing to use racism, homophobia and xenophobia in others as long as its to his personal strategic benefit. That arguably makes him worse than any of those dumbfucks who at least have lack of education as an excuse.

Those of us disgusted by him and how he got to the White House mustn't normalise him now he's there.

America has redefined itself this week, just not as leader of the liberal free world.

Edited by Rob.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Rob. said:

Those of us disgusted by him and how he got to the White House mustn't normalise him now he's there.

America has redefined itself this week, just not as leader of the liberal free world.

Hear, Hear Rob!

I try to be moderate. I try to see the bright side, the glass half full. When the results and implications became clear, I tried not to spit the dummy, to lash out, to be a poor loser. I tried to accept the "majority" (yeah, right!) has spoken.

And I've watched many others - world leaders, liberal left leaders, celebrities, friends, acquaintances say, oh well, we have to accept it, see how it does and learn to work with him. I've seen leaders like Obama, like Turnbull here and others, who couldn't contain their disdain for Trump during the election, now say we should give him the benefit of the doubt. And then I've watched the protests breaking out across the US, and initially though, well, that's not really a good way to react. That's not going to win sympathies back.

But that's done nothing to contain the gloom, the horror, the sheer disgust at what I've seen happen the past week. And the past year. I don't think I've ever been so introspective, so questioning, of my core political beliefs. I've watched in growing dismay over the past 12 months as the liberal western values that I've put so much belief and faith in have just been manifestly failing to contain the boiling ugliness that we thought had, maybe not been eradicated, but at least tamed and consigned to wither away in its own irrelevant bile.

And then I've seen the signs of what Trump's win has unleashed. Notes from US students to muslim teachers that they should now go hang themselves with their burkas because there is no place them under the new president. Notes under card windshields of gay pastors telling them that they hope their new president obliterates their fag marriages now. Obnoxious preppies in bars chanting "grab their pussies" in their drunken celebrations. And then I've seen some leaders finally say what should be said in contrast to the mealy mouthed platitudes of the Obama, May and Turnbulls of the world. I've seen the likes of Merkel and Nicolas Sturgeon at least mark the lines of decency they say they will continue to stand for.

I'm through with acceptance. Of moderation. Of appeasement. I don't wish ill or bad times on the people of America and the western world over the next four years. I don't want to see our societies crumble. But as another member here, Seth, put it in his Facebook feed - I'm in the anger stage of grief now. I want to see the protests continue. I want to see the cities streets of America express the disgust and rejection of what has been foisted on them. I want to see the leaders of the world stand up for the values they say they believe in and tell the new President "No", there is just no way they can accommodate or accept or condone policies that are abhorrent to any decent person in the world. I want to see every ugly act Trump introduces or commits to challenged, fought against and resisted. I'm no communist, but I want to see the excesses of late stage world capitalism, the system that has brought us to this place and created the disaffected classes that trump has whipped up and used for his own ends, truly challenged. I want to see anger, agitation and resistance.

 I want to see western liberalism fight back, not just wither away to irrelevancy in an effort to be reasonable about the unreasonable.

Edited by Sir Rols
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

And there you have it, in his CBS "60 Minutes" interview Trump said today that he wants to deport up to 3 million people from the United States. I guess that's the premature end to that farcical "I feel the burden of my office already now and therefore I act more humbly than anyone expected of me" show he presented in the few days between the election and today.

Regarding what @baron-pierreIV said about Kaine: While I recognise that he is a nice guy, he actually made pretty quite a fool of himself in the vice-presidential debate, with all his interruptions and his inability to place just one effective jab or punchline against Pence or Trump. I don't think he has the format for running for President, and sometimes I thought during this campaign that even the shoes of a Vice President are slightly too big for him.

I rather think that the Democratic Party is well-advised to nominate a rust belt politician or at least someone with real street credibility (in terms of blue-collar Americans) in 2020. I don't know if there are any promising Democrats in states like Ohio, Pennsylvania or Michigan, but someone like Cory Booker from blue-collar state New Jersey could be an interesting choice along those lines, also due to his appeal to the African-American electorate and his still rather youngish age.

And regarding what you, @Ikarus360, said about the Colombian referendum: Well, my boyfriend is Colombian and he was affected by the FARC conflict in his childhood, too - and also because of this, he was devastated about the result of the referendum - and so was I. By the way, that result wasn't all that self-evident after all those polls before the referendum showed a clear majority for the peace treaty (so there we go again with those untrustworthy polls in that politically crazy year of 2016...). So I guess I have actually pretty good insight into that topic. And by the way, the peace treaty was mostly rejected in regions of Colombia which weren't as strongly (or even not at all) affected by the FARC conflict. So I don't share your rationale that Colombians rejected the peace treaty because they were fed up from all that violence and suffered most from it. But I digress...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...