Politics Vote for a president of USA - 2016 election

Pick a president.

  • Hillary Clinton

    Votes: 11 20.8%
  • Bernie Sanders

    Votes: 11 20.8%
  • Ted Cruz

    Votes: 3 5.7%
  • Marco Rubio

    Votes: 4 7.5%
  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 24 45.3%

  • Total voters
    53
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Clinton was crushed, it was not a narrow defeat.............this is the end for her

Popular vote:Hillary: 59,236,903 votes Donald: 59,085,787 votes. Is this a crush?
 
They are not necessarily the same voters Angela. Usually voter turnout is about 50%, and usually same people vote in every election and same never vote. This time, I believe, some characters who never vote, came out of woodwork to vote for Trump, and some who usually votes didn't vote this time in protest.
Talking about some characters:
KKK congratulates Trump on the win.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...leader-congratulates-trump--and-thanks-wikil/

Not only KKK:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offb...oasts-trump-victory-with-champagne/vp-AAk67py

Someone said that it's made with the grapes of Crimea.
 
The real question would be why so many lower to middle class people voted for Trump. One of his main policies, and one that really makes him a Republican, no matter how much he claims to be different from the rest, is going to cut taxes for the super-rich and cut social benefits for the poor(er). Once again the 0.1% managed to get their candidate elected by the people who understand the least about politics and react the most to rhetoric, populist demagogy and all the media drama. And the sad thing is that all these people are happy that their candidate won, not realising that they voted for the 0.1% (all the opposite of what Trump appeared to be, despite his being part of the 0.1%). It's just like with Brexit all over again. Those who voted for it will be the ones suffering most the consequences. There is no cure for idiocy yet.

On the international scene, I was very concerned when G.W. Bush got elected, and he indeed caused a lot of wars and suffering (Afghanistan, Iraq) as was expected. Trump could be much worse because his attitude is even more radical. I disliked Bush for being an evangelist Christian, and Trump is better on that front as he doesn't seem to care much about religion. Yet, his extreme stance against the Mexicans and the whole Muslim world will cause serious tensions globally and will certainly foster more Islamic terrorism in retaliation. On the other hand one could wonder if it wasn't about time Islamists like those ISIS bast*rds get crushed once and for all.

If Trump leads the country properly in the next six months, or at least satisfy the masses by implementing some popular campaign promises, his example could bolster Le Pen's chances of becoming France's next president in May 2017. With both France and the US led by anti-Islamic presidents, a domino effect could see a rise in radicalism across Europe, which could very well degenerate in WWIII (the West vs the Islamic world). Who knows? Maybe we are already in it and don't have enough hindsight to realise it.

Trump's victory is not all bad. He is strongly against the TTIP, which I think was a huge mistake - at least for European consumers, who would lose the benefit of stricter food regulations.

I need to make a point before I answer this question to do with why would so many lower to middle class people voted for Trump. I haven't got time to read all the posts of what the other people said, so just in case somebody already spoke about this I would not know. I am only a seasonal participant on this forum, I haven't got time to read ALL of what you said in here.

Ok, so according to what I know, this is because of money. My relatives in the US (middle class) ( some are over 60 years of age) were required to pay 600 US dollars per month for their health care to feed the lower class. Now that is a lot of money. Rich people pay no taxes in some cases (like Donald Trump) or even if they are required to pay taxes for the upper class who is extremely wealthy that is small potatoes.

Donald trump will reduce taxes. Before they have to pay 35 % taxes and now with the new president's regulations they pay 15% taxes. For small and medium-sized businesses' owners like my relatives over there, this is affects them a lot.

Obama treated his presidential victory like some sort of movie star campaign. He showed off his presidential victory with his wife with expensive clothes on the dance floors.

He even went to Kenya and told them that the US will make them rich. The people of Kenya even said things like our people is the president of the US.

Donald Trump even got the votes from the American Chinese ( yes my relatives over there and others). Moreover, 50% of women voted for Trump. These voters are what foreigners and Hilary Clinton herself thought would vote for her!

I think those who are opposed to the Trump campaign are those who look at the world from a social political point of view, we the Hans and others like us always see things from an economic point of view.

Having said that I don't think the ruling party in mainland China is too happy about Trump's victory.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Minty,

Typical Trump voters were middle class people, and not some "rednecks" as LeBrok claimed. I have been reading a Polish forum where two American guys post, and they are upper-middle class Trump supporters who live in sub-urban areas (one lives in California, not sure about the other one). They support Trump for similar reasons as Minty's relatives. They do not want to pay high taxes, they do not want to feed the growing underclass. I can also add based on what they wrote, that they simply do not associate with people such as Hillary supporters. They don't feel absolutely any ties with them, other than sharing space on the same continent. That guy from California wrote that probably the vast majority of people who live in "Real American neighbourhoods" voted for Trump. He wrote that there are two main indicators which define these "Real American" neighbourhoods":

1) The Graffiti Factor = no graffiti within few miles from your house; 2) The Well-Maintained Lawn Factor = perfect backyards.

The real question would be why so many lower to middle class people voted for Trump. One of his main policies, and one that really makes him a Republican, no matter how much he claims to be different from the rest, is going to cut taxes for the super-rich and cut social benefits for the poor(er).

But in America the middle class actually is kind of super rich. These are not mutually exclusive categories there.

According to that guy from California, "middle class" people like him can afford very big "haciendas", a private yacht, and sometimes even a private light aircraft. And he wrote that people from "Real American neighbourhoods" would support building a wall not only along the border with Mexico, but also around "nests of degeneracy" - as he called San Francisco and Los Angeles. One excerpt from his posts (translated):

"(...) we, by all means normal American people, treat these nests of degeneracy / vice such as SF, LA, Denver, or Seattle like some curious types of zoological gardens, inhabited by large numbers of weird and very exotic creatures. It is only a matter of time, until we build high fences around these cities... and start demanding visas from people living inside, in case if any of them would like to move to our side of the fence. Many of you probably remember movies like this made in Hollywood itself, which were very popular circa 25 years ago. (...)"

I must admit that this actually sounds scary, especially considering that this guy has a PhD degree.

What made these people so pissed off? They probably have more than enough of the regressive left and of excessive PC.
 
I agree with Minty,

Typical Trump voters were middle class people, and not some "rednecks" as LeBrok claimed. I have been reading a Polish forum where two American guys post, and they are upper-middle class Trump supporters who live in sub-urban areas (one of them lives in California, not sure about the other one). They supported Trump for similar reasons as Minty's relatives. They do not want to pay high taxes, they do not want feed the growing underclass. I can also add based on what they wrote, that they simply do not associate with people such as Hillary supporters. They don't feel absolutely any ties with them, other than sharing space on the same continent. The one from California wrote that the vast majority of people who live in "Real American neighbourhoods" voted for Trump. He wrote that there are two main indicators which define these "Real American neighbourhoods":

1) The Graffiti Factor = no graffiti within few miles from your house; 2) The Well-Maintained Lawn Factor = perfect backyards.



But in America the middle class actually is kind of super rich. These are not mutually exclusive categories there.

According to that guy from California, "middle class" people like him can afford very big "haciendas", a private yacht, and sometimes even a private light aircraft. And he wrote that people from "Real American neighbourhoods" would support building a wall not only along the border with Mexico, but also around "nests of degeneracy" - as he called San Francisco and Los Angeles. One excerpt from his posts (translated):

"(...) we, by all means normal American people, treat these nests of vice such as SF, LA, Denver, or Seattle as a kind of zoological gardens, inhabited by large numbers of weird and very exotic creatures. It is only a matter of time, until we build high fences around them... and start demanding visas from people living inside, in case if anyone would like to move to our side of the fence. Many of you probably remember movies like this made in Hollywood itself, which were very popular ca. 25 years ago. (...)"

I must admit that this actually sounds scary... Especially considering that this guy has a PhD degree. What made these people so pissed off ???


Reminds me deeply of Ayn Rand neoliberalism. http://dare.uva.nl/document/2/129693
Parts of het Fountainhead could be described for Trump. Eat or being eaten. Predator attitude. All the way Trump is brought up. Even the way they did have sex is grab....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOEcu8ebwDw
 
He also wrote:

"(...) You are committing a mistake when writing about "America", because there is no such thing. There are of course 50 Americas, or even more. Precisely - there are 3007 Americas (after subtracting special administrative units) - and these counties form the basic social, economic, and financial structure of the whole country. I remind you that the USA was built from the bottom to the top, not the other way around. This is yet another reason why Trump had such strong support. "Pundits" and other TV's talking heads forgot about this simple truth. Trump actually enjoys considerable support among White women living in sub-urban areas and undoubtedly belonging to the enigmatic "middle class". The term "middle class" traditionally meant - and in many parts of the USA still means - simply all of the working class, including both "white collar workers" and "blue collar workers". (...)"
 
It is one country though. However I understand that is the system at present and nobody seem to have been much interested to change it. So be it. It could have worked both ways for each party. But the naked truth is Hillary got more votes over all. So the stunning victory and so on we are hearing is somehow bogus in the heart of hearts. ;)
Good point. Wouldn't be amazing however if everybody in US would think the same, and think like Tomenable and support Trump? Then he could show us, once and for all, that he is right, that he was right all the time, and he is the smartest to figure it out, and the bestest, lol.
 
Do you think that under Trump objectification of women will become more common in the USA?: :unsure:

 
Angela I'am always fond of these kind of election cards, thanks! Just out of curiosity what is the deep blue spot in south dakota, in almost red area.....?

PS Found it obviously American Indians are not Trump supporters! American Asterix and Obelix ;)

"The bluest county in South Dakota is Shannon County, where Obama won 93.4% of the county’s 2012 vote. While the bluest county in most states overwhelmingly voted for Democrats to represent them in the U.S. Congress, Shannon County’s representation has been more even. Over the last five congressional elections, Shannon County helped elect both Republicans and Democrats. The county was roughly 4% white, with a majority of residents identifying as American Indian. By contrast, 74% of Americans identified as white. Also, county residents had a median household income of just $25,648, less than half the national median household income of $53,046."

Looking at the map, I have a feeling, that it was Urban versus Rural, straggle in this election. Big cities voted 2:1 and in some cases 5:1 for Hillary. Similar to Brexit, where London voted to stay, and most rural to go.
 
Ok, so according to what I know, this is because of money. My relatives in the US (middle class) ( some are over 60 years of age) were required to pay 600 US dollars per month for their health care to feed the lower class. Now that is a lot of money. Rich people pay no taxes in some cases (like Donald Trump) or even if they are required to pay taxes for the upper class who is extremely wealthy that is small potatoes.
Here's the thing. Wealthy people/businesses pay a lot of tax. It is a misconception that they all avoid paying, or use loopholes in the system. Where does the funding come from otherwise? The Starbucks baristas and career protestors who are too lazy to work?

I agree with your post mostly though. When you get extremely wealthy, there is a certain threshold, where those taxes become small potatoes. I am quite pleased with the election results though. The Democrats were interfering in the Canadian election last year and helped elect a moron. I am very pleased the Elites were dealt this blow.
 
Popular vote:Hillary: 59,236,903 votes Donald: 59,085,787 votes. Is this a crush?

popular vote does not count in any nation I know of, there is a system created in every nation which determines a government. A Popular vote system is bad, it would mean farmers and people outside of the major cities would never have a say.

Yes , Clinton was crushed on 289 to 222 ................and the worst part is that ALL propaganda , 100% of Media , reporters etc etc where ALL against him...........he still won.

When have ever do you see this saturation of news , reporting etc against someone and that someone wins is the astonishing part.
This says the people hate the current political system and unless there is a complete change it will keeping happening



I am not American, I do not like Trump , never have.........yet I would also have voted for him, just to destroy the corrupt system of the USA government. they have been bad since early 2000
 
"Grab them by the pussy" is unacceptable, but "grab them by the dick" apparently is OK:

 
According to that guy from California, "middle class" people like him can afford very big "haciendas", a private yacht, and sometimes even a private light aircraft. And he wrote that people from "Real American neighbourhoods" would support building a wall not only along the border with Mexico, but also around "nests of degeneracy" - as he called San Francisco and Los Angeles. One excerpt from his posts (translated):

"(...) we, by all means normal American people, treat these nests of degeneracy / vice such as SF, LA, Denver, or Seattle like some curious types of zoological gardens, inhabited by large numbers of weird and very exotic creatures. It is only a matter of time, until we build high fences around these cities... and start demanding visas from people living inside, in case if any of them would like to move to our side of the fence. Many of you probably remember movies like this made in Hollywood itself, which were very popular circa 25 years ago. (...)"

I must admit that this actually sounds scary, especially considering that this guy has a PhD degree.

What made these people so pissed off? They probably have more than enough of the regressive left and of excessive PC.
A case of true natural conservative. Scared shitless of everything a bit different than what he grew up in.

I must admit that this actually sounds scary,
We know it is scary for you. You are a natural conservative too. It is a common trait for all natural conservatives. The fear of the new and the different. Recent papers in psychology confirm this fear factor of conservatism.
 
Here's the thing. Wealthy people/businesses pay a lot of tax. It is a misconception that they all avoid paying, or use loopholes in the system. Where does the funding come from otherwise? The Starbucks baristas and career protestors who are too lazy to work?
That's right. 10% taxpayers pay 50% of taxes, and 50% of all taxpayers are paying more to the system than they take. 50% of all Americans are supported by the richer 50%. Meaning that system is financially supported by the middle upper class, the rich and the corporations. In this case this is preposterous what Trump does and proposes for all to be smart and avoid paying taxes. America would collapse in few short months if it happened.
What happened to the value of sharing? What happened to the pride of paying taxes and supporting your great country? What happened to feeling good helping the poor and in need. What happened to being a good and proud citizen?
I can only hear Trump and his supporters shouting me, me, and me. Spoiled, jealous, greedy, fearful, compassionless brats and bullies. The scary thing actually is that these are mostly Christians. God save us all.
 
They are not necessarily the same voters Angela. Usually voter turnout is about 50%, and usually same people vote in every election and same never vote. This time, I believe, some characters who never vote, came out of woodwork to vote for Trump, and some who usually votes didn't vote this time in protest.
Talking about some characters:
KKK congratulates Trump on the win.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...leader-congratulates-trump--and-thanks-wikil/

Yes, well, I'm sure the Black Panthers would have celebrated too if Clinton had won, as they did when President Obama won. There are tiny, fringe, nut jobs on all sides of the political spectrum. Are we going to use them all to smear actual candidates or is our smearing going to be selective?

I think it's probably better to go with the findings of those who analyze this kind of data for a living. I listened to just such an analysis last night on CNN by Democrat operatives that compared actual voters as well as the total number of votes in rural and working class and suburban counties, and not only did the total not increase, but the voters didn't change; it's just that a chunk of the white working class, factory workers, miners, farmers, tradespeople, switched from voting Democrat to voting Republican, many union members included, and a lot of that has to with trade policies and the loss of jobs and the fact that for the first time someone was specifically addressing that point.

The white vote actually went down this cycle, from 72% with Romney to 70% of the vote with Trump. As Bob Beckel explained, it's not that Trump brought out new voters, it's that Trump outperformed what McCain and Romney did in certain groups. It's not voter" replacement"; it's voter "realignment". Given the electoral college system, that "realignment" broke the "blue wall". (Trump also lost some of the college educated for Republicans this cycle, although he still wound up +4 with them.)

The other important part of the story is that the Obama "coalition" of Blacks, Hispanics, and Millennials, while they voted for Clinton, just didn't come out in anywhere near the numbers necessary. That’s down to them and to her, not anyone else. That’s why I find these “protests” incredibly annoying. The votes were there; they just didn’t bother to vote. If you can’t win even when major news outlets give you all the answers to debate questions ahead of time, Wall Street and Hollywood make sure you have tens of millions more to spend on the campaign, including tv ads, and an incredibly sophisticated ground game, and you’re running against this incredibly flawed candidate, then it’s time for a lot of soul searching. (In fact, a better percentage of Hispanics voted for Trump than voted for Bush, although he got a very decent share of that vote, and Trump also got 13% of African American males, which is nothing to brag about, but is a departure from the past.)
And how does it stop a racist liking certain ethnicities and totally disrespect others?

Oh, please Angela, this is crazy. We can as well excuse KKK racist crimes as stupidity, lazy thinking and no filter.

You have proved my point in terms of these allegations of “racism”, and why hyperbole and misuse of the term leave us without the ability to describe really reprehensible racist ideas and activities. You are equating things like saying that a judge ruled against him because he was Mexican-American with the kinds of ideas and activities espoused by the KKK. There’s really no way to continue this aspect of the discussion once you go there.

Everybody can make mistakes in quick judgment. However he had years to cool down and rethink all to rectify his angry outburst, but he didn't. Same as with Obama's birth certificate. I'm sure he still believes it was all rigged and he was right all along. He is conspiracy theorist after all. Mind, that in both these cases the "perpetrators" are blacks.

From the rumors I'm hearing, Trump decided to go after Obama after the 2011 dinner when Obama held him up to ridicule in front of a whole room of New York notables. The "nice guy" isn't always so nice. He picked the wrong person to humiliate when he picked on Trump. For whatever reason, Trump's really thin skinned and insecure and when you attack him he never forgets and never forgives and his reactions can be way over the top. He also seems to never admit he was wrong. Those are two of the many reasons I didn't vote for him. The leader of the most powerful country on earth just can't react this way.

Anyway, that's how I see it. I'll just add that when people start imputing nefarious motives or beliefs to me, like some sort of secret racism, based on their readings of my "unconscious", the conversation is over, so I really hope you're not going there.
 
Angela I'am always fond of these kind of election cards, thanks! Just out of curiosity what is the deep blue spot in south dakota, in almost red area.....?

PS Found it obviously American Indians are not Trump supporters! American Asterix and Obelix ;)

"The bluest county in South Dakota is Shannon County, where Obama won 93.4% of the county’s 2012 vote. While the bluest county in most states overwhelmingly voted for Democrats to represent them in the U.S. Congress, Shannon County’s representation has been more even. Over the last five congressional elections, Shannon County helped elect both Republicans and Democrats. The county was roughly 4% white, with a majority of residents identifying as American Indian. By contrast, 74% of Americans identified as white. Also, county residents had a median household income of just $25,648, less than half the national median household income of $53,046."

I like them too. :) They tell you a lot more than the graphics that just show the final apportionment by state. (Here's the direct link to the map so you can see it all more clearly.)

See:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...ionwidecountymapshadedbypercentagewon.svg.png

New York State is a perfect example. It went for Clinton by 18 points, I think, but look at the red in what we call the upstate areas. That's "rust belt" country, more like Ohio than like New York City or Long Island. What's the blue blob? Albany County, heavily minority, and also an old time Democratic machine that's been in power for over 100 years. Or, look at Florida. South east Florida, heavily Jewish and black and Hispanic, went Clinton, but the Cuban-American vote, very middle and upper class, and low turnout by blacks kept the margins for her too low. Along the all important I-4 corridor, looks like she got Orlando, which is heavily Puerto Rican, and Hillsborough, which is Tampa, with its large African American population, but the rest went red, especially the areas with big military bases and closer to "southern" states.

The operatives are drilling down into these numbers in order to understand precisely what went on. They know who voted now, in what precincts, of what party affiliation.

@Twilight,
I've only been there once so I may well be wrong, but don't the Cascades separate farming and ranching areas from more urban areas?

Just a general word about the electoral college. I don't like it myself, but it's here to stay according to virtually everyone I've ever heard discuss it, as it's part of the Constitution. To change it would require a 2/3 vote in both chambers of Congress, plus the approval of the President, plus approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures. The smaller or less populous states and their representatives in Congress are never going to give up that much power.

The founders meant to insure that smaller states would not be overwhelmed by larger ones. That's why they set up a federal system.

Of course, as others have pointed out, everybody knows the rules going in, and all their planning is based on the Electoral College.

As to whether this is a "sweeping" victory or not, as Tomenable said, we have to look at the broader picture. This is the first time in a very long time that one party will have control of the Presidency and both houses of Congress. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of state legislatures and governors of states are also Republican. Even in terms of the electoral college it could turn out to be a massive victory, with Trump ultimately getting over 300 electoral votes.

However, the fact remains that this is a deeply divided country. Clinton did get slightly more of the popular vote in terms of percentages. Most importantly, those electoral college wins by state were also by the thinnest of margins in a lot of cases. Plus, if anyone thinks that Trump and the Republicans in the Congress are on the same page, they should think again. I honestly don't know what Trump believes in a lot of cases, but he was a Democrat until three years ago, so that should tell you something. He's no Paul Ryan.
 
"Grab them by the pussy" is unacceptable, but "grab them by the dick" apparently is OK:
How about both being unacceptable? Did it cross your mind? How about "no to" any sexual advances against a will of a person? Can you find video like this? Any decent thought left in your head, or degrading and bullying women is your favorite hobby?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

This thread has been viewed 701097 times.

Back
Top