Election Day USA

[Sonny-Burnett]

12 minutes ago, Daytona74 said:

 

 

You couldn't help feeling a little bit gleeful at that, yes. And Clinton wasn't the "decent" candidate. She was not the morally obvious choice, no matter how much she tried to build her campaign on female voters and ethnic minorities and on political correctness, social justice and equal opportunity. You can accuse Trump of populism and incitement all you want. You can even say he's got no morals of his own. But the fact is, Clinton fought just as dirty as him, if not dirtier, and so did the liberal media who supported her.

How does the old saying go, never fight with pigs. You'll both get dirty and they'll like it. Well, Clinton actually proved that she was just as much a pig as Trump.

And if the people are fed up with the political establishment in Washington, then it will not help you that you've been part of that establishment for 30 years yourself. People will see you as part of the problem, not as the solution. And from what I gathered, that is one big reason why a greater number of people dislike Hillary.

It is truly funny and entertaining watching these media talking heads this morning falling all over themselves trying to rationalize the "unthinkable". Martha Raddatz, the CNN  so-called debate moderator, was literally in tears, and some on ABC, CBS and NBC were almost comatose in their moods as they tried spinning the election results. I haven't looked at MSNBC yet. I hope that the major network executives realize how their networks were not only ineffective in electing Hillary, the most corrupt Presidential candidate in history, but that the message to them is that viewers demand fair and balanced news reporting from ALL networks or else they may become irrelevant and nothing more than entertainment. Biased reporting has gotten out of control, and news networks should never act as extensions of the political campaigns of candidates. Even Fox needs to step back and realize they are no longer the fair and balanced network they once were..

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by Sonny-Burnett

[Daytona74]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb Tony D.:

 but I listened to Trump's acceptance speech and I was proud of how humble & presidential he was in his response to Hillary and how he would work with everyone in both parties & other countries.

 

Well... I see it this way. With Obama, the biggest show ever was put on when he was running for President and was then actually elected and inaugurated. You would have been forgiven for thinking the beginning of his presidency was the second coming of Christ. And what happened? Where do you guys stand eight years later?  Many people's lives haven't improved one bit. No matter whose fault it was, either Obama not having the backbone and staying power or the Republicans stonewalling him at every turn. The new American Dream that he sold to voters during his campaign did not materialize.

So now we've got a President-elect who couldn't be further down in the basement in terms of how capable many people think he will be in his new role as President. But my point is, if you look at Obama, you can't judge a book by its cover. Obama failed to deliver on most of his promises. With Trump now, there can pretty much only be positive surprises from here on out.

[Sonny-Burnett]

This just in: the Clinton Foundation has just changed its name to the Clinton Legal Defense Fund.  

Guess that concession call last night didn't go so well.

[Ferrariman]

2 hours ago, Daytona74 said:

  Trump will be the more reasonable President in dealing with Russia than Clinton.

Putin has stated in the past that he likes Trump and did in fact congratulate him via telegram this morning.

[Tony D.]

I don't think Chris Mathews feels a "thrill up his leg" ......NOW!   

[Matt5]

1 hour ago, Tony D. said:

I feel America is better off with Trump.............I know a lot of you disagree.

I don't want to beat a dead horse..... but I listened to Trump's acceptance speech and I was proud of how humble & presidential he was in his response to Hillary and how he would work with everyone in both parties & other countries. Also his attitude toward our police & veterans!

Even Glenn Beck who didn't like Trump, congratulated his speech & presidential manner.

You're welcome to your opinion Tony - I think Lou was right he is a President not a dictator and major decisions will have to go through congress.

But he did well - he took Florida and Ohio. 

[Daytona74]

vor 19 Minuten schrieb Ferrariman:

Putin has stated in the past that he likes Trump and did in fact congratulate him via telegram this morning.

 

The problem is that the neocon war press has spun Putin's declared fondness of Trump as proof that Trump is anything from un-American to a covert Russian spy.

In this icy climate of foreign relations between the U.S. and Russia, in which both sides are to blame, would some people actually be more comfortable with Putin strongly disliking an American president, and therefore relations between the two countries getting even worse? Would that improve anything at all?

Getting along with the Russian president isn't necessarily fraternizing with a perceived (I would even say imaginary) enemy. On the contrary, it is absolutely necessary to keep us from slipping back into a new Cold War, with all its consequences.

[Sonny-Burnett]

1 minute ago, Daytona74 said:

 

The problem is that the neocon war press has spun Putin's declared fondness of Trump as proof that Trump is anything from un-American to a covert Russian spy.

In this icy climate of foreign relations between the U.S. and Russia, in which both sides are to blame, would some people actually be more comfortable with Putin strongly disliking an American president, and therefore relations between the two countries getting even worse? Would that improve anything at all?

Getting along with the Russian president isn't necessarily fraternizing with a perceived (I would even say imaginary) enemy. On the contrary, it is absolutely necessary to keep us from slipping back into a new Cold War, with all its consequences.

The spin about Trump's relationship with the Russian president was spun by the Clinton campaign, as was outed in Wikileaks It was nothing more than political theater designed to cast a shadow on Trump. Working with Putin is one thing,  but the failed Obama/Clinton "Russian Reset" served no purpose and, Obama/Clinton's inaction and even seeming indifference to the Russian invasion of the Crimea and the Ukraine were seen as weakness by Putin. History has shown that Russia understands strength and Trump must show Putin we are no longer going to sit on the sidelines when the Russians engage in hostile actions. I'm not suggesting military action, but Putin needs to understand he is no longer dealing with a feckless community organizer, but with a more determined leader than he has been accustomed to for 8 years. We can start by strengthening our relationships with our key allies.

[Daytona74]

vor 3 Minuten schrieb Sonny-Burnett:

Obama/Clinton's inaction and even seeming indifference to the Russian invasion of the Crimea and the Ukraine were seen as weakness by Putin. History has shown that Russia understands strength and Trump must show Putin we are no longer going to sit on the sidelines when the Russians engage in hostile actions. I'm not suggesting military action, but Putin needs to understand he is no longer dealing with a feckless community organizer, but with a more determined leader than he has been accustomed to for 8 years. We can start by strengthening our relationships with our key allies.

erm... not to put too fine a point on it, but I thought it was pretty hostile that the West kicked off a revolution against a democratically elected leader in Ukraine because they didn't like the fact that he was more Russia-oriented than to the West. That was a clear violation of UN statues about respecting the political independence of foreign countries. Even if you are going to argue that Russia broke the same statutes by occupying Crimea.

And as far as the whole Crimea thing, well, Crimea is one of Russia's most important military bases on its western flank. Did people like Victoria Nuland who were responsible for the government overthrow in Ukraine actually think the Russians were going to give that up?  And it stands to reason that U.S. forces would be similarly concerned if an anti-Western revolution broke out in a country where the U.S. holds major military bases.

In summary, this whole "Russian aggression" thing is complete nonsense without seeing the other side, and in and of itself has about as much weight as some dumb blonde in a beauty contest saying she wants "world peace".

And determination, yes. Maybe a determined leader will be good for dealing with Putin. But they need to be determined about the right things. The wrong kind of determination will only act as a fire accelerant. You may think Obama was feckless, and yes, by and large, he was. But his administration still had enough "determination" to let foreign relations with Russia deteriorate to a level of hostility which we haven't seen since the 1970s.

[Sonny-Burnett]

I don't want to drag this into the weeds but I don't subscribe to your theory that a lone state department official, as inept as Nulad was, caused the government overthrow in the Ukraine. Ukraine's President's problems were self inflicted. Almost from his first day in office, Ukraine's President Yanukovy used his office as a means of enrichment for himself, for his immediate family and then the so-called "Family." . These people embezzled something like $10 to $15 billion in the three and a half or so years that they were in power. And within a few months of coming to power, he changed the constitution and gave himself enormous powers  to become essentially a "super President".  He also made bad trade deals that hurt the country, and let's not forget when he reneged on the deal to sign the [EU] Association Agreement and the comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union.  He caused his own demise.

Dealing with Putin is complex and the solution is not obvious because of his own sometimes reckless behavior, but negotiating from a position of weakness is never a solution when dealing with the Russians.  Determination in negotiations yes, and from a position of strength. Obama really couldn't be bothered with foreign relations and that was perceived as ambivalence at best or weakness at worst by Putin. I think that had much to do with the decline in US/Russian relations, and they are now heading in the direction of Cold War levels. Trump needs to find a way to right this and do so directly with Putin, and he needs a strong SoS to help in these dealings.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Sonny-Burnett

[Daytona74]

I don't see how Ukraine is any better off with its current government. Poroshenko is just as much an undemocratic oligarch as his predecessor. Besides, the West has no right to point fingers, having supported corrupt leaders on and off for the last 100 years in countries around the world as long as they played ball. And no, Victoria Nuland didn't personally cause an overthrow in Ukraine, but people like her darn well had their fingers in it.

vor 11 Minuten schrieb Sonny-Burnett:

Trump needs to find a way to right this and do so directly with Putin, and he needs a strong SoS to help in these dealings.

I'm half agreeing with you there; but again, if Trump and his administration and whoever else calls the shots on the side of the U.S. and the West isn't very careful, it's only going to push us deeper into a new Cold War. And again, I think Clinton as President just would have been stone cold aggressive against Russia. And nobody could have afforded that. There's a difference between stating your point and standing your ground and just blindly making things worse.

[Sonny-Burnett]

42 minutes ago, Daytona74 said:

I'm half agreeing with you there; but again, if Trump and his administration and whoever else calls the shots on the side of the U.S. and the West isn't very careful, it's only going to push us deeper into a new Cold War. And again, I think Clinton as President just would have been stone cold aggressive against Russia. And nobody could have afforded that. There's a difference between stating your point and standing your ground and just blindly making things worse.

I get you on the need to proceed carefully with Putin, as no one wants a war. I see Trump as more of a negotiator and he paints himself as such. If he shows the temperament and patience to deal with Putin, and can remain engaged (unlike Obama) then I think gains can be made. But he also needs a smart and experienced negotiator who understands strategy in negotiations, and particularly understands the Russians. As with any negotiation you want to win as many key points as possible, and concede as little as necessary to do so, and be prepared to walk away if necessary. With Putin, I suspect this will be a drawn out affair. And we can agree Clinton would have been a disaster, as her meddling in the Middle East and current Russian relations already attest.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Sonny-Burnett

[Daytona74]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Sonny-Burnett:

 And we can agree Clinton would have been a disaster, as her meddling in the Middle East and current Russian relations already attest.

Exactly. Whatever Putin is and isn't guilty of, a lot of the current situation not just with Russia but also in Syria is her ballgame. She is a big reason why we are at this point.

Trump may be a narcissistic blowhard, but like him or not, he has business acumen. Even if he has gone broke a few times, he knows a bit more about constructive negotiation than Hillary. And if you're good at negotiating business deals, then there is hope that that skill can be translated into diplomacy and foreign policy.

Hillary has always seemed to me like one of those people who believe that they will get what they want just by beating other people over the head with their view point long enough. Negotiation means carving out deals where both sides get a bit of what they want. And not just shoving everything you want down the throat of the other side and shouting angrily at them for expecting to get something in return. Maybe you can do that with equal opportunity schemes. But not with a foreign country that has enough nukes to wipe your own country off the face of the earth.

[Tommy Vercetti]

Trump doesn't need to get on his high horse too much because he only won because Killary is so universially despised. If it was Trump vs. Sanders, then Sanders would've won. 
Ultimately this election was decided on the lesser of two evils.

Here's a parting shot for KKKillary (The Butcher of Libya)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tptxW_ilRWc

 

Edited November 9, 2016 by Tommy Vercetti

[Sonny-Burnett]

2 hours ago, Daytona74 said:

Exactly. Whatever Putin is and isn't guilty of, a lot of the current situation not just with Russia but also in Syria is her ballgame. She is a big reason why we are at this point.

Trump may be a narcissistic blowhard, but like him or not, he has business acumen. Even if he has gone broke a few times, he knows a bit more about constructive negotiation than Hillary. And if you're good at negotiating business deals, then there is hope that that skill can be translated into diplomacy and foreign policy.

 

Lol on the Trump comments, and I agree.  I've said on a few conservative boards when people questioned Trump's experience, I'd much rather have as President a smart business person capable of learning exponentially faster than a community organizer, rather than a 30-year corruptocrat whose only accomplishments are selling out the country for profit. And I do agree his negotiating experience will pay great dividends not just on the international stage, but also in working with both sides of the aisle in Congress. Obama's 'my way or the highway' approach to legislation just exacerbated gridlock. And Trump's Chapter 11 declarations were restructurings and debt reduction measures while the companies continued to operate....not a sign of weakness as many on the left kept yammering, but just using good business sense.

Edited November 9, 2016 by Sonny-Burnett

[Sonny-Burnett]

16 minutes ago, Tommy Vercetti said:

Trump doesn't need to get on his high horse too much because he only won because Killary is so universially despised.

I also think people were rejecting the policies of the last 8 years, because Hillary had planned to perpetuate Obama's failed Domestic and International policies. And I think people also were rejecting the ruling political Elite class, and telling them in essence, you do not make decisions for us any longer.

[Daytona74]

I'm with you, Sonny-Burnett. What good is having earned all your stripes as a politician who has spent decades rising through the ranks, if you then end up failing like Obama. Or maybe the very fact that you did rise through the ranks like Hillary is because you are really corrupt as heck. And I think voters saw right through the latter.

I actually used to work in politics. Under some well-known figures even (I won't tell you more than that). Part of the reason why I quit was my disgust at all the latent corruption and cronyism. No matter who you were dealing with, they were all dirty.

Also, businesses can fail even if you are the best management executive the world has ever seen. A commercial company can be a thing of infinite complexity. A decision that may seem sound and profitable one day can lose you everything right the next day.

 

Again, I still can't say I like Trump. He's got a lot to prove before I'll ever think he's really a good person. But if he gets the job done, and more sensibly than Hillary, then he is the lesser of the two evils.

[Sonny-Burnett]

Well said, Daytona74. And I completely agree on Trump. I was not a fan of his, and originally did not support him. But once nominated it was clear to me the alternative was far worse, and a known commodity. While Trump has no track record and is unpredictable, and his policy positions will likely evolve over time, he at least understands business at the macro level, and so I think that can translate into trashing the current economic practices of warmed over Keynesian economics (embraced by Obama) in favor of reduced government spending, lower business taxes, and less government debt incursion. His economic plan says as much. He also needs to reverse the job-killing regulations imposed by Obama, reduce the size and scope of the Federal bureaucracy and let businesses thrive again in America.

[Tommy Vercetti]

How did Donald Trump get so rich? I'm sure cocaine traffiking probably had something to do with it. And he most likely did business with the mob.

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime" - Honore de Balzac

[Daytona74]

vor 8 Minuten schrieb Tommy Vercetti:

How did Donald Trump get so rich? 

It's risk reward arithmetic. He did some highly speculative real estate deals and had sheer luck on his side.

The flip side was that he lost most of it again with his casino deals in the 80s and 90s. Again, highly risky investments, but this time his luck ran out, they didn't pay off and he nearly lost everything.

It's a bit like a highly volatile stock that whipsaws back and forth. If you get in long at the right time with enough money, you can very literally make a fortune. But if it's really that volatile, then there's about an equal risk that you will lose your money when the stock crashes.

[Vicefan7777]

I saw an interview of several voters and asked why they voted for Trump.  One, Obama lied about the Affordable Care Act actually being affordable.  Two, Trump is not a career politician.  The hard working Americans who have suffered the most in the last 8 years have spoken.  They want change.  

[Tommy Vercetti]

I really would like Trump to be different from the last four administations, on foreign policy most of all, but I guess I'm too disillusioned with those administrations' policies to be enthusiastic. If he's been in anyway different a year from now I might change my mind. He has a year to convince me he isn't full of shit.

1 hour ago, Daytona74 said:

It's risk reward arithmetic. He did some highly speculative real estate deals and had sheer luck on his side.

That's the official story anyway. He had a hotel and casino in the mob controlled Atlantic City yet he was totally clean? Donald Love from Grand Theft Auto III was clearly modeled on Trump and he could've been like him in ways of business practise

Edited November 9, 2016 by Tommy Vercetti

[agent 47]

2 hours ago, Tommy Vercetti said:

I really would like Trump to be different from the last four administations, on foreign policy most of all, but I guess I'm too disillusioned with those administrations' policies to be enthusiastic. If he's been in anyway different a year from now I might change my mind. He has a year to convince me he isn't full of shit.

That's the official story anyway. He had a hotel and casino in the mob controlled Atlantic City yet he was totally clean? Donald Love from Grand Theft Auto III was clearly modeled on Trump and he could've been like him in ways of business practise

You know this whole election season has gone by and it never occurred to me that the possible basis for Donald Love has been running for president. Funny enough I just started playing GTA 3 again today and now I'm going to be thinking "Yes, Mr. President." When I get to those missions. 

Also on disillusionment, yeah I totally been feeling that for a long while. That's been this election in a nutshell. The working class were growing disillusioned with the current establishment and made their displeasure known last night. Bernie wasn't on the ticket so Trump was the only viable choice for that voter. Hopefully Trump keeps in mind what gave him the job when he takes office.

[Kavinsky]

12 hours ago, Ferrariman said:

I have to agree!  Even up here in Toronto, Canada it's on TV ad nauseum.  

Now that Trump has won everyone thinks the end of the world is coming. Just a reminder here. Trump cannot just do what he wants. Things have to pass through congress to become a reality. That's why we have presidents and not dictators.

 With that said let's just remember what they say about religion and politics. Bad topics to discuss.  Everyone has an opinion and as long as it remains civil this topic will remain open, but as soon as it starts going south....

yeah that's why I kept it neutral lol you know I followed the dragnet mantra, just the facts ma'am, as theirs too many good people involved on either side for their own reasons, doesnt mean their bad people, just maybe people who dont know or havent been effected by all of this in the way someone else was.

you know judge an individual on their actions, not the group, as theirs decently people involved on either side, although I'd be lying if I said a part of me doesnt want to gloat abit. especially at this persons expense

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/Elizabeth_Warren_Manchester_NH_October_2016.jpg

Edited November 10, 2016 by Kavinsky

[Tony D.]

9 hours ago, Ferrariman said:

Putin has stated in the past that he likes Trump and did in fact congratulate him via telegram this morning.

Trump said in his acceptance speech ......."we will get along with all other nations, willing to get along with us. We will have a great relationship. While we put American interests first, we will deal fairly with every one. All people & all other nations...common ground not hostility."

"willing to get along with us," is important here. To me that means, if Putin messes up, the love affair is over!

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by Tony D.