Its gonna be President Trump ..!!! ??

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

I grasp that Louisa. I think some of the criticism of Hillary was deserved,and some of it was rooted in deep-seated biases.

I have had an issue with her ever since she started taking an active role in the presidency when her husband was president as I believe in democracy.

Trump didn't win this; Hillary lost it.

[intexasatthe moment]

Trump didn't win this; Hillary lost it.

Dear Lord ,EVERYTHING is Hillary's fault .She can do no right .

[????]

So to sum up the great and good of the EDF...I think it's a great pity the plebs have the vote......yes, pesky democracy eh

the illiberal left need to look in the mirror - they have some responsibility for the polarisation and populism of modern politics

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

intexasatthe moment Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Trump didn't win this; Hillary lost it.

>

> Dear Lord ,EVERYTHING is Hillary's fault .She can

> do no right .

That's a ridiculous response. I'm not saying she's to blame for everything, I'm saying that antipathy towards her resulted in a lower Democrat turn-out.

I get very tired of Hillary fans who can't accept ANY criticism of her.

[rendelharris]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> So to sum up the great and good of the EDF...I

> think it's a great pity the plebs have the

> vote......yes, pesky democracy eh

Funny, I said absolutely the opposite - don't patronise the working class by treating their voting choice as just an angry tantrum which is someone else's fault, every adult has a vote and takes responsibility for how they use it. A rightwing maniac becomes president and it seems, to some people, that's not the fault of the people who voted for him, it's the left's fault really...

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

Quids, it's the responsiblity of both sides. Neither are listening to the other.

[Angelina]

The two sides who DID vote are equal in total to the number who did not bother to vote.

As with Brexit, people who votes the opposite will say those who voted in favour did not know what they were doing. I don't think that could be farther from the truth.

They may not be clear on how this will end, but they are clear where they didn't want it to start.

[Earl Aelfheah]

People knew exactly what they were voting for. Trump didn't mince his words, he was clear what his values were (he's an unreconstructed misogynistic, racist bully). It may be comforting for those on both the right and the left to try and rationalise this as a protest against economic grievances, but the truth is that isn't what the voters themselves say. It's about immigration, about 'political correctness' - there are a lot of angry white men who don't like the social changes which have seen their privilege slowly eroded and want to take us back to the 'good old days' when they could say what they wanted without being challenged on it. And it's not just blue collar workers, there were a greater percentage of affluent, older white men who voted Trump.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

Whilst I agree that there are a sizeable chunk of people who voted for him because they agree with his vile views, I think it's simplistic to write off everyone as having voted for the same reason. For instance, there were a lot of extremely poor people who voted for him because the system is not working for them and they want change, and Hillary represented the social structures that they feel have kept them oppressed.

[JohnL]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Let's cut to the chase here. People who vote in a

> dangerous Proto-fascist deserve to be called out

> for their choices. The things Trump has said and

> done aren't OK. If someone is a racist and a

> sexist and a bully and a liar and you support

> them, then personally I don't think that's some

> kind of legitimate form of protest.

Hopefully he will govern as a chief executive - get good

people in and let them make choices.

He seems to have calmed down already. There won't be a wall

as there's a fence already, the anti Islamic stuff was removed from

his website as soon as he won (says it all)

I fear for the supreme court - but just have to accept it - it'll swing back

maybe when a certain Michelle enters the race next time :).

[Earl Aelfheah]

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whilst I agree that there are a sizeable chunk of

> people who voted for him because they agree with

> his vile views, I think it's simplistic to write

> off everyone as having voted for the same reason.

> For instance, there were a lot of extremely poor

> people who voted for him because the system is not

> working for them and they want change, and Hillary

> represented the social structures that they feel

> have kept them oppressed.

Of course there is no one simple answer. Different people voted Trump for different reasons, but there is no getting away from the fact that a vote for Trump is at some level an acceptance (or at least not a rejection) of his clearly and repeatedly expressed (and in my opinion quite vile) views.

[Earl Aelfheah]

@JohnL - I hope you're right and at the moment, I'm still optimistic that he'll quickly row back on some of his more extreme pronouncements.

[P.O.U.S.theWonderCat]

I disagree. For some, they simply felt desperate and thought he was the lesser of two evils and the only chance for change. There have been a number of really interesting docos on this that really changed my assumptions.

Saying that the voters had to accept his views is like saying that anyone who voted for Hillary accepts flouting of security policy and adultery. You can vote for a candidate without endorsing everything they do and say.

[Nigello]

People are very good at discounting what they don't want to acknowledge or accept, so it is possible, even likely, that voters were willing to suspend their disbelief at his more egregious beliefs and policies, thereby allowing themselves to vote for him.

Just heard an articulate, sane, 30-something mum in Virginia who works as an estage agent, saying she is perfectly capable of making up her mind and saying she voted for him because the US needs to be better run, like a business, by a non-career politician.

Then again, I also just that the KKK is holding some kind of vitory rally......

[Earl Aelfheah]

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You can vote for a candidate without endorsing

> everything they do and say.

Of course that's true. But you can't really vote for a candidate without endorsing the central tenants of their campaign.

[JohnL]

Nigello Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People are very good at discounting what they

> don't want to acknowledge or accept, so it is

> possible, even likely, that voters were willing to

> suspend their disbelief at his more egregious

> beliefs and policies, thereby allowing themselves

> to vote for him.

> Just heard an articulate, sane, 30-something mum

> in Virginia who works as an estage agent, saying

> she is perfectly capable of making up her mind and

> saying she voted for him because the US needs to

> be better run, like a business, by a non-career

> politician.

> Then again, I also just that the KKK is holding

> some kind of vitory rally......

Not defending Trump - who maybe mad as a hatter :)

Bill Clinton had some really bad sides to him - but

I have him down as a good president in terms of what

he got done. He got impeached and couldn't give a toss

(which impressed me for some childish reason)

Hillary: what happened today Bill

Bill: I got impeached, it happens :)

[Angelina]

so when you vote - so you vote against who you don't want? or only vote for who is fully aligned to your beliefs?

I think it's more the former.

[Jenny1]

P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> You can vote for a candidate without endorsing

> everything they do and say.

Absolutely agreed. But doesn't there come a point when what someone does and says become so extreme that alarm bells need to go off in your head, and if they don't, there's something wrong?

I also saw the story that Nigello notes about 'The Klan' . Wouldn't people have been concerned about voting for a candidate who played to this section of the electorate? We're known by the company we keep.

[JohnL]

Angelina Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> so when you vote - so you vote against who you

> don't want? or only vote for who is fully aligned

> to your beliefs?

>

> I think it's more the former.

The last Prime Ministers to lose an election

Gordon Brown

John Major

was it Callaghan before that - that might have been the economy ?

Edit: Wow just realised they were all 'follow ons' (Blair, Thatcher, Wilson)

[????]

Jenny1 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> P.O.U.S.theWonderCat Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> >

> > You can vote for a candidate without endorsing

> > everything they do and say.

>

>

> Absolutely agreed. But doesn't there come a point

> when what someone does and says become so extreme

> that alarm bells need to go off in your head, and

> if they don't, there's something wrong?

>

> I also saw the story that Nigello notes about 'The

> Klan' . Wouldn't people have been concerned about

> voting for a candidate who played to this section

> of the electorate? We're known by the company we

> keep.

So do you apply this position and logic to Corbyn and McDonnell, Livinsgtone and Abbot to name just 4?

[Jenny1]

I certainly won't be voting Labour if an election comes up in the near future, as I'm a firm believer in the centre ground of politics and don't feel they represent that right now.

But do explain your thinking a little more ????.

[????]

join me in the middle ground Jenny.

I mean that by your logic about the company we keep - breaking bread with terrorists and theocratic fascists is as bad I was just checking it was being consistently applied :)

[BrandNewGuy]

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> People knew exactly what they were voting for.

> Trump didn't mince his words, he was clear what

> his values were (he's an unreconstructed

> misogynistic, racist bully).

Well, a good friend of mine in California (who voted for Clinton) said that on the stump Trump banged on and on about the economy, wages, manufacturing, infrastructure, tariffs and free trade all the time ? far, far more than he did about Mexicans and Muslims. And lots of those speeches were shown live on TV (as indeed were Hillary's), so I suspect many Americans got a different perspective from those of us in this country who saw very little of that.

Not that I think his 'solutions' make much sense...

[Angelina]

yes - exactly. Cutting Corporation tax to bring offshores back to inland (tax difference won't be so extreme) will be significant and bringing industry back will be a hugely beneficial change to the States.

[DaveR]

Columnist in the Times put it this way - Trump's opponents and the media took him literally but not seriously, the voters took him seriously but not literally. Who was right remains to be seen.