I'll be the first to call it
 

Trump will be the next President of the United States.

Totally doesn't surprise me. He had huge crowds at rallies constantly. Tim Kaine was getting less people turning up than I get at a modest birthday party. Hilary's rallies were only big when Obama turned up or when she had another celebrity.

The absolute arrogance of Hollywood, main stream media, big business (including Twitter, Facebook and Google who were clearly censoring Donald Trump and his supporters from what I saw), Bruce Springsteen (who lives in a 95% white rich area) was quite unbelievable I thought and they all underestimated their "enemy". They all insulted him. They all tried to bring him down and thought that would influence the vote. In the end I totally don't believe Trump was really their enemy. He was a voice of people who feel that they have been left behind and that the country could do better than a career politician completely intertwined with corruption.

I've read Wikileaks. And you know what? What ISNT in those emails is actually worse than what was in there. They hardly ever discussed what was going to be good for the American People. Only winning tactics and media collusion. Disgusting.

The right person won in my opinion. Trump learns fast and will not be a disaster regardless of what people think. Yeah stocks are going down somewhat. So what. Bankers perhaps lose out in the mean time. The same bankers everyone hated in 2008 for creating inflated bubbles.. A successful large country cannot simply rely on financial services only and Clinton was the absolute front of that.

Again I want to remind anyone reading this that almost the only adult in the entire celebrity establishment seemed to be Meat Loaf.
U2, Lady Gaga, Springsteen, George Clooney and others behaved like morons. Trying to take away people's choices. Ie don't do that or you're a racist etc.
If they REALLY thought Clinton was great, fine by me, go campaign for her (I still don't see why a politician needs rock concerts etc but whatever and Jayz Beyoncé were paid millions apparently). What they almost all did is to constantly focus on Trump was wrong and childish. Trump is not ~~~~~~ no matter how often you say it. When he puts his mind to things he is mostly successful. Sure out of the 100 ventures he has dabbled in he has had missteps. Considering only 1 in 10 businesses succeed his ratio isn't bad at all. You don't just become a billionaire through sleeping. He gets up at 5am everyday. That's a lot earlier than me.

Trump is no angel however, sure. Rude alpha male at times and sure he likes beautiful women. I don't believe he ever grabbed women that didn't want it. In the private recording he was talking about what women let celebs do whether you agree with it or not. Up to him and the women in his life. He never insulted Clintons supporters. Clinton did insult his supporters. These things are significant.

Also people should realise actions (corruption) speak louder than words.

Finally I honestly believe a government isn't there to make me feel good. I want it to uphold law and order, uphold constitutions, organise trade deals, strife for peace and good international relations, indeed keep me safe through borders if that's possible and never forget it is there to represent the common person who pays for the government. Of course a modest welfare programme is necessary but I honestly think socialism doesn't work. It promotes bad behaviour (why should I work etc or do better). Look at Venezuela and other South American countries where far left doesn't seem to work and gets people stuck in a vicious circle. Americans don't want this, that is clear. Back to basics isn't always a bad thing I reckon. We did it with Brexit to a certain extent and I honestly do believe the EU will collapse because of its own arrogance and beaucracy. A union of countries with open borders which have such differences between salaries and unemployment is total nonsense.

Obama: "if the UK leaves the EU, you'll be at the back of the queue for trade"
Trump: "The UK will be the first in the queue"

For the UK this positive attitude is I think much better than scare mongering from the establishment.

On another forum I was called an idiot for pointing the disconnect out from celebs in advance. Perhaps liberals / the left / social justice warriors will do some soul searching and stop insulting people as an idiot or racist so quickly whoever disagrees with their politics. :-)

Glad there were more mature convos on this forum.

I knew by midnight. Exactly the same "oh it's only the first few" attitude that Brexit had when the first few results came in.

But in a time when the prime attitude of America is often seen as smug and self righteous...they now have their perfect face.

The future just ain't what it used to be eh.

At least we should get to see the Bat Musical get its release before he finds the button - although Adje may say that isn't necessarily a plus point :lol:

Ahh thank you. I needed some good news! :lol:

I woke up not dead this morning...
 

Life will go one... We lived through Nixon ... Donovan on the juke at the moment... laaa deee daaaa... laaa deee daaa ... back to living in my own little world... peace out ... oh and coffee... I still have coffee... and internet connection and cable tv... yes... turned OFF... lol ...

oh dear... there goes my calm ... lol ... at 8:10am est I've just received a call from a person of the lilting sing-song voice.. saying they're calling from Windows... etc... After a bit of mild chastising I bid her "peace peace peace" and take me off the call list.. I get this call about once a week... heyyyyyy... Maybe with his SECOND hour in office Trump could stop THOSE !!!... snirt ...Now that would be sayin' something.. oh... peace peace.. back to calm ....

How on earth were celebrities "trying to take away people's choices"?! That's a ridiculous statement. I didn't see Bruce or Gaga using intimidation tactics at the polls, unlike some of Trump's supporters. He is a billionaire who has lost billions and declared bankruptcy on more than one occasion- hardly a person I would trust to improve the economy. Perhaps he should be sleeping at night instead of engaging in a Twitter war at 3 am over ex- beauty pageant contestants.

Well, this sexist, misogynistic statement says a lot...

No, he just advocated physical violence against them.

I want those things as well; I don't believe Trump will do those things. I do not believe he will protect the rights of ALL the citizens of my country. I do not feel safe with that man representing my country to the world. He doesn't speak for me.

I can't wait until Trump's supporters realize how they were duped and lied to- he's not going to come through on his unrealistic promises. It will be very interesting to see what happens then.

Agree with you Julie.

One thing in Andrew's post I can agree with .. it's not helpful or reasonable to label all those who were supporting Trump as idiots or racists, even if some were. Most of of those who voted for him I think will have done so despite the fact that he said (perhaps even believes) repellent things, not because of it. They had a belief that the system is fundamentally broken and that Hillary Clinton would have been more of the same. Trump rode a wave of support from people who've spent the last eight years watching terrifying nightly news reports about ISIS and mass shootings and riots. They look outside and see painkiller addicts and closed factories. They believe that nobody in Washington gives a crap about them, and they have a point.

Trump said what people wanted to hear .. You want change? I'll deliver it. I am the one who can deliver jobs, negotiate our debts down, put the Chinese in their place etc Don't like Obama care? I'll scrap it and replace it with something different and better. And then for some he said I'll stop Muslims coming in, kick illegals out, build a wall, stop taking in refugees etc Those who didn't endorse these last promises were I think prepared to overlook them because the others were so appealing.

Half the country did not vote for Trump, and many who did are not racist, bigoted, anti LGBT. You still have more positive, open-minded and progressive people than not. He seems to have no clear strategies or plans to deliver any of his promises. He'll have a busy two months and still won't have them for all .. because he'll probably find some, perhaps many, of his notions are not so easily workable. I agree with Julie .. many of his promises are unrealistic. My hope is that he will have to concentrate on the ones that the majority of his supporters gave him their vote for, rather than those he offered to the ones who are simply bigoted .. and these latter are the ones with beliefs I do not think the majority of Americans espouse. (A small part of me wonders how much he really meant those which are horrendous, how much he simply used them as a lever to get the support of a tranche of the electorate.)

There will arguably be an increase in racial tension and other forms of unpleasantness, but American society is resilient, diverse and fundamentally decent, even if some of it is currently trying to prove the opposite. He will be constrained in what he can do at home even by a Senate with a majority and a GOP dominated Congress, by the courts and various other checks and balances. There are fewer impediments to Presidential power in foreign policy. As so much of Trump’s domestic programme depends on what he does abroad, the rest of us will be as, if not more, exposed than Americans themselves.

His vindictive, xenophobic, and bullying style are likely to encourage a rougher exchange between countries on world issues. He is not a win:win negotiator, but one who views a good deal as imposing his will on others; a limited and belligerent idea of what makes successful diplomatic negotiations. He is quick to anger, not good at managing it. He espouses trusting his instincts and not overthinking things, and has already indicated that he will not listen to advisors .. on foreign policy he said “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things.” Many of his intentions would unravel the fabric of international society carefully woven over the past six decades or so. It may well make the Korean Peninsula or the Gulf even more unsafe.

He is hostile to the EU, although his style will appeal to the far right like the French Front National. He may well have more enthusiasm for the UK now it is leaving the EU, but his attitude and intentions towards NATO together with his admiration for Putin, the single greatest threat to the stability of the European order, could leave Europe on its own to stand against Russia and defend Western values worldwide, and whether we are in or out of the EU we are part of NATO and still geographically part of Europe. And if he builds his "wall" .. will we see that replicate in Europe? Might we see walls go up across Europe that we may not see brought down again in our lifetime? Might 1989 to 2018 become known as the between walls era?

Andrew says he honestly believes a government isn't there to make him feel good. On that basis ours is doing well then, because mine doesn't make me feel good at all, nor the homeless, nor the disabled, in order to minimise a necessary "modest welfare programme" .. 14% planned for 2017.

Julie said "I do not believe he will protect the rights of ALL the citizens of my country. I do not feel safe with that man representing my country to the world. He doesn't speak for me." I hear you. I feel less safe.

Actually I think your statement is ridiculous and uninformed.

Bruce Springsteen calling Trump "a moron" is hardly a green light towards his own fans that they should consider the policies of both candidates but he thinks one is better because of such and such. George Clooney also behaved like a child by proclaiming "There is not going to be a president Trump, nah we are not going to go down this path." It is not solely up to George and Bruce or any celeb who becomes president. It is up to the people in the entire country and going by the electoral college votes they overwhelmingly voted for Trump. Yes I think the elitist behaviour shown by Bruce / George and the celebs who claimed they would move to Canada if Trump won were trying to use their celeb status to influence people's minds to the point "don't vote for that because that is not really an option".

If you have countless of business ideas and companies of course some will fail yes. He came from an era before you could make billions from a single online idea. What Trump has tried over his lifetime is probably far more difficult than what Larry Page, Mark Zuckerberg or a Jack Dorsey have done I would argue. His businesses have dealt with services, properties and physical products. All very competitive and most businesses in all these sectors fail.

The Alicia Machado case was the most ridiculous strategy of the corrupt DNC campaign. A woman who was a getaway driver at a robbery, had a drug dealing boyfriend and had sex on a big brother style show (knowing that cameras are watching her). And I should feel sorry for her because Trump called her fat or miss piggy? In 1998/99 he tried for a while to get her to lose weight and defended her (See video of him talking to reporters and saying "well we all like to eat right, I like it too so this is something we are going to deal with with Alicia" if you really care). If you go into the industry of modelling then don't be surprised you will lose your job or get bad comments if you don't look after your body. If this harsh reality is too much for a snowflake to take don't enter a beauty pageant. Am I supposed to be impressed by Hillary Clinton who thinks THIS is more important to bring up in a presidential debate rather than Isis beheading countless of people or the immigration problem caused by overthrowing Gadaffi (another Hillary special) or dealing with Islamic terrorist attacks in the US and beyond? Come on.

Really? :roll:

DNC paid protestors $1500 and an iPhone each. If you care about physical violence / dirty election tactics / pay for play / collusion and corruption you only need to read around 1% of the Podesta Wikileaks emails to see it is an absolute blessing that Hillary Clinton didn't win. How they destroyed Bernie Sanders (see emails) and then asked for his support is absolutely disgusting. His legacy is ruined all to try to get Hillary in the White House, that is the only thing they cared about.

Well if Trump sucks in 4 years your country can do this all again. :-)
What I find disturbing instead of Trump winning, is the fact there are millions in the US who seem eager for him to fail. Sad. Young "protestors" now burning the stars and stripes outside of Trump tower and wanting a Hillary win is something the Hillary supporters should think about. It is no good having people like that on your side, it reeks of anti USA, anti patriotism and frankly self loathing. Oh and don't bring up the David Duke thing in defence. Hillary has KKK supporters too. It is meaningless. The main stream media doesn't seem to get by shoving their support for Hillary down people's throats and covering for her lies the voters got sick of it and seeked unbiased information on Trump via online sources. Thank goodness for the internet.

In 4 years hopefully the DNC will come up with a candidate who is not being investigated by the FBI and who wants to improve the lives of Americans rather than just try to run a default winning strategy of "I am the woman so I deserve to win". The sympathy and feminist strategies used by Hillary backfired and rightly so. When she jokes around feeling intimidated by Trump suppossedly stalking her on the stage during the 2nd presidential debate (he didn't, she walked into his space constantly), this is a sign of complete weakness. Subconsciously voters were asking "Hmm and she is going to defend this country and that scared her?"

When some of the supporters of Hillary are as stupid as this guy it's quite obvious why she lost:
https://twitter.com/Austin_Barbour/s...65692954931200
:D :D

Just saw this on Twitter and perhaps it is a good summary:

Resonating comment from Peter Thiel: the media took Trump literally and not seriously while voters took him seriously and not literally.

Interesting media analysis from a biased Hillary supporting channel.

https://twitter.com/Morning_Joe/stat...96626366533632

This doesn't apply to all democrats, but it does apply to most of the vocal majority of democrats that get news time.
http://media.mlxxfc.net/14980763_102...25040013_n.jpg

Clinton campaign manager just compared the Trump win to day after 9/11.

Exaggeration much?

Why they are still wheeling these people out on the main stream media is frankly incredible.

So what happened?

My view of things on Trump's election.

Many things are involved here. First the current President. Agree or disagree with his policies but Obama has showed to be a President that based his decisions on what HE truly believed was the best for America. No scandals, no corruption. He was a gentleman in the White House. And people love him for that.

That did raise problems for Hillary Clinton though. If an honest person like Obama was not able to do what so many hoped he would do (and thus disapoint many Americans) why would Hillary be any different? How would America change for the ones that are very disapointed. The answer is simple. She couldn't.

Trump on the other hand had the advantage of this. So he used his campagne to play into that. And he did succeed.

In camp Hillary many underestimated how much she/the Clintons are hated and to get the votes of these people she needed to come up with a campagne that would take away of this feeling and show how capable she would be. And for a long time she succeeded.

I do believe that she had the momentum until the FBI got involved with the email return. Don't get me wrong, I don't say Hillary would have won if the FBI didn't suddenly decide to go public a week ago, but it did stop the momentum she had. And it was very obvious that the decision to come out with this 2nd investigation was a political decision. More so after the outcome of the 2nd investigation. It was intend to harm Hillary Clinton. It's a shame we now will never know how much that influenced the election but you can count on it that unhappy people that considered Hillary did change their mind after this.

Then there is another issue people underestimated. Too many voters are angry, scared and hateful. And the demonisation of Trump did not help that. Maybe even made it worse. Here is a guy playing into their fear and anger and all the media did was demolish the guy for so many things that they forgot what it is all really about.

One thing I've learned is that making a decision on emotion is never the wise decision. But this is what happened. People were angy, scared and had a guy playing into this emotions while being insulted by the media all the time. It created a bond.

During his campaign Trump, according to fact checks, has lied about 70% of the things he said. And non of the voters cared about the lies. They just wanted to hear the stuff they felt so strong about. In fact, according to some Dutch programms I saw, many actually believed the lies to be true. U.S. media missed an oportunity here. They should have made the fact checks more in the picture but instead they went after the pussy grabbing stuff.

Hillary, on the other hand whad another problem: Bernie suporters. Many of them didn't want to vote Hillary as she was part of the establishment and she didn't get Bernie enough involved in her campagn to get those people to vote for her. She just trusted them to vote for the democratic nominee when the moment called for it.

Trump on the other hand was smart enough to get non voters to expose their anger by voting against the Crooked establishment (he called it Crooked Hillary but it was clearly intended on all politicians).

So this is what happened. Many voters aren't willing to watch to the entire picture but to their situation only. Hillary would have been a better leader with focus on many items. Trump knew how to play into personal situations better and won a lot of votes there.

And this is where the polls went wrong. All major pollers only polled the people who voted in the past, denying the ones that didn't. Also they polled by phone where many were reluctant to admit they would vote for Trump (there was on poll team that predicted the outcome. They polled through the more anonymous internet and they polled people that didn't vote before) and thus the Clinton team and democrats who are not a fan of CLinton but figured she would beat Trump were blindsided. Leaving many anti-Trump voters at home. Basically because the polls showed that he wouldn't make a chance.

My personal thoughts:
I disagree with Andrew about his vision of Trump. I do believe that Trump is the worst choice. For a few very simple reasons. If you look back into the life of Trump he isn't that succesful as he claimed and the succes he did gain has always been over the back of the people that trusted him. Don't forget that, by the time he started the Apprentice show, his empire was in huge debt and about to crumble and the Apprentice succes did redeem him. Also the many investigations and lawsuits against his corruption are too much to deny. Trump has cheated his way out of so many issues and there are still lawsuits open.

Everything Trump has ever done has been about Trump. There is no denying that the man is a narcistic person. This was known about him 20 years ago, it never changed and even his entire way to the election has showed he is.
He also is a populist. He doesn't care about the truth but what sounds good. In the history of elections there has never been a candidate that has been so dishonest about the issues as Trump was.

So, in my opinion this is why I think the outcome of the U.S. elections are bad.

People voted, not by head but by Heart. (not all, but many many did) and as I explained earlier, it's not good to make a decision based on emotion. It forgets you to see the bigger picture, it makes you blind for reality and it stops you from comparing issues. Also, the Hate for the Clintons has been so inmense that many votes have been protest votes against Hillary Clinton. And believe me, voting for a candidate because you hate the oponent doesn't necersarily mean you made the right decision.

Also, Trump has proven himself to be a populist. And history has thought us over and over again what that means for society. Of course it's to hope that Trump will find good advisors in his team (and that he for once listens to them) and I'm sure the World will not get blown up because he is President, but I don't think the World will become a better place under President Trump. Sure there will people and even countries that will benefit. But not because it is right for America but because Trump cares about one thing only, the Trump name.

So would things have been better under Hillary? NO! And I want to make this also clear. The answer is a big NO.

Under Hillary things would have been merely the same as they are now, only with a person in the White House that would be less trusted than the current President. Too many things are not right in the U.S. and Hillary would not have been able to change that. Hillary in the White House would have created more of the same and basically a status quo, that is bad for many American citizens.

It was a choise between two bads. I only think that the worst of both was the one that outsmarted them all.

I will make this prediction. In 4 years the Democrats will get a President in the White House again. This time, in 2016, anger and fear decided the outcome and in 4 years many of the current voters will be so disapointed that they won't vote anymore.

One more thing that I want to make clear. Not ALL Trump voters handled out of the anger and fear and hate I was talking about. But many of them did. At least many enough to give him the edge. Most of those voters didn't vote for Romney (or Obama for that matter) but felt they had a reason to come out this time and cast their vote. There also have been many Republicans who either just voted for their party nominee or because they do see potential in Trump.

In all honesty, I am worried. Trump doesn't have the diplomacy of Obama and there is so much at stake in the U.S. and the World. Trump, in the past and during this election, has shown himself to be a loose canon. And I can't see how that is good. This isn't some Hollywood movie.

That said, he has the weight of an entire country on his shoulders now and I hope he handles that with care. He might not have been my choice, but now that he is elected he is the person that I wish strength and all the best during the Presidency, the people have voted. And it is time that Hillary suporters start to acknowledge their loss. Trump will be the next President and, like it or not, he is also your President. I read and hear about demonstrations and riots. It doesn't make this election undone. It's time to take your loss and continue with your life! Everybody was so shocked when Republicans said they would not accept the outcome of the election if Trump lost. But, people, isn't that what the democratic demonstrants are doing right now? Something about the pot calling the kettle black?

The main stream media was obsessed with securing a Clinton victory, hell several of them were nearly tearing up as trump closed the night.

A lot of voters were turned off by the blatant media bias and the refusal to properly cover wikileaks and other things that would harm Clinton. A large chuck of voters turned to the alternative media for some real answers.

It also didn't help that Clinton has spent her entire career mired in one scandal or another. She also showed herself to be completely out of touch with the middle class which was the deciding factor in this election. The leaked emails from Clinton campaign brass should have been enough to turn anybody off quite frankly

This Ben Page guy is pollster. No wonder the polls get it wrong. Not only are journalists determined to shove their already written news narratives down people's throats, even pollsters are. Absolutely incredible.

http://media.mlxxfc.net/Screen Shot ...t 15.28.57.png

Maybe 35+ years of Bushes and Clintons at the top of America's helm was enough for some people. I tend to agree.

Now some are wanting Michelle Obama to run for 2020. :roll:

I switched to RT news on the night of the election and their reporting seemed very unbiased. They even had Larry King on there. ;)

I wouldn't trust them for any news regarding Russia though.

But the internet is indeed a great alternative source for information now. Some alternative internet based journalists / pundits even refuse interviews with BBC and Sky now as they see it as beneath them. :lol:

How anybody can dislike this comment is incredible. It is not even a comment, it is fact. Jeez....

BTW one more thing I want to add.

The U.S. is a very very divided country at this time. And, no matter who would have won, the next President is under a magnifying glass. This is also not going to help this country. The next President (any President) will have to make decisions that do not work out for everybody. And in the current state things can escalate very fast.

In that matter I do think that it's not in general interest that the House, the Senate and the White House have complete majority (neither for Democrats nor Republicans). There always should be some balance and in the U.S. that balance is currently gone. You must hope that decisions are made with the biggest consideration but the truth of the matter is, you can't do anything about it if it's not. And that should be scary for every citizen!

BTW that is all I have to say about this election and discussion. No use to debate it anymore. It's settled and only the future will tell who was right.

I don't think the US is divided at all. ;)
http://media.mlxxfc.net/Screen Shot ...t 15.54.15.png

The blue team should simply understand they don't get to say who is in charge all the time. When they lose an election because the blue team got smaller they should accept it.

The red team didn't go off their heads when the blue team won in 2008 and 2012. In fact the last protests I can recall was when George W. Bush won. Again the blue team seems to struggle with the red team winning. Hmmm, and aren't they supposed to be the more "tolerant" ones?

The main stream media and the education establishments have a duty to inform rather than create a narrative where patriotism and limiting immigration (certainly limiting ILLEGAL immigration) are somehow filthy things. There are very valid reasons for patriotism and limiting immigration but the young and uninformed are not hearing them and simply think anyone who wants to limit immigration is a 1930s/1940s German dictator. Black lives matter (bankrolled by George Soros) has created a narrative that states somehow all cops are racists when in fact more white people are shot by police in the USA than African Americans.

Finally when it comes to reasons to limit immigration consider this graph.
http://media.mlxxfc.net/Screen Shot ...t 16.02.07.png

This doesn't mean I don't want to see the 3rd world prosper. Instead it would be best sometimes if the strongest of that population stays there instead of moves to the first world so quickly and that we try to help them to do better over there. :-) I think that would be a solution to a better world. Opening the doors like what Merkel did is easy but it doesn't seem to work that well even if she can sleep better at night thinking she has done a great thing.

My final argument:
At the back of people's minds I'm sure there is law and order (almost all law enforcement unions backed Trump). People could see the country not heading in the right direction with Obama. A nation of sympathy, feels, unlimited illegal immigration, exporting all manufacturing jobs, unlimited benefits, in fact socialism (eventually rewarding bad behaviour - see south America where this continually fails) is not what the United States of America was based on at all. Freedom meant you had to work for your living given liberties but you had to follow law and order.
When the Americans saw the FBI didn't uphold law and order when it came to Hillary Clinton's email scandal (people got put away for doing much less in the past) and saw that she somehow was above the law, the people in the USA took justice in their own hands; at the ballot box.

Certainly he won more electoral college votes, but that does not mean individuals overwhelmingly voted for him. The popular vote was pretty evenly split, with Clinton just ahead I think. The EC institution has long been seen by many as a vestigial remnant of a bygone era. In public opinion polls, Americans of all political affiliations support a direct presidential election. Trump himself leveled a critique in 2012, calling it "a disaster for democracy". Its the system, and he certainly had a clear and conclusive win based on that .. but it doesn't equate with an overwhelming number of people's votes.

Burning flags, violence, riots are bad, counter-productive and do those involved no credit or service.

There have also been numerous peaceful protests by people carrying candles, not angrily shouting, and not exclusively young. There are many people in the USA who see some of his major platforms as directly countering the social progress it has taken years to achieve, some of whom would be very directly affected if he strode into office and started to dismantle it. There are gay couples who fear their marriages may become unlawful; transgenders who have heard mixed messages from Trump during the campaign, but who are aware of Pence signing an expansive anti-LGBT measure into law, and that the Republican party at large has made its near-total opposition to trans rights clear (Republicans are also poised to repeal the Affordable Care Act, and with it, an anti-bias measure that prevented many health insurance plans from discriminating against trans policy holders); women who fear the removal of choice, even the possibility of imprisonment; Muslims who fear they will be regarded with suspicion, even restrictions, or who do not see family members being able to join them; Americans who feel compassion for refugees and want their country to offer a safe haven; there are also Mexicans who entered the country illegally seeking a better life, who have settled, had children born Americans, who face fearful uncertainty.

Sections of the American people are concerned, many are fearful. Peaceful protests aimed at sending a clear signal that turning back, dismantling the progress fought for and achieved will be resisted and is not acceptable, are both valid and important in my view; a signal sent to the President elect and to the Senate and Congress who have to approve domestic policies and law. People know the balance of power in both is Republican now, but there will come the mid-term elections.

I don't know which channel you watched live, but I'm sorry, he did, and she didn't, at all; she did what simple manners dictate most people do when their opponent is speaking, sat on the stool provided He walked around continuously as she was speaking, and many times walked up to stand right behind her. Somewhere on a scale between bizarre and menacing behaviour, but I think aiming to distract speaker and audience and indicative imo of his game show gamesmanship, and doubtless prompted them to put the behind lecterns at the final debate.

I know you're gloating and I hope you're being sarcastic otherwise it's a really dumb statement.

Basically it's a 50/50 situation. You can't have it more divided than that. But not only is it almost 50/50 (Basically most elections in the U.S. are very close when it comes to popular votes) but the mindstate of both sides are so far apart from each other that it's impossible to deny.

I'm not gloating at all.

This is why they have the electoral college system which simply means California and New York do not decide everything. It is a union of different states do not forget.

Also even if you think California and New York should have the final say and you always agree with the views of the people from there consider that these two states are financially in the top 10 worst performers out of all 50 nation states. ...and they keep voting left hoping for what exactly?
https://www.mercatus.org/statefiscalrankings

As at some point most facts have to be interpreted by a person who is swayed by their own perception, experiences and views, perhaps she has a different perception, and is exercising her right to disagree?

And Adje is right .. that map does not represent popular vote which is fairly equally divided, and in each of those states there will be many who voted for each party, so of course there will be divisions.

If he said that then I completely disagree with him on it.

It would be like Germany, the UK and France deciding everything in the EU (pretty much what has been happening :roll:). Hence the resentment of people in the UK, a lot of people in The Netherlands, Italy, Greece and eastern European countries with Merkel's recent open door policy. Just because the population in one country is high doesn't mean in a union the others shouldn't be heard at all.

I'm glad we have a the constituency system in the UK. If the EU referendum was based on that we would be leaving even faster.

There are reasons for the electoral college system in the US and constituencies in the UK. A full simple body count in democracy doesn't work perfectly because of geographical reasons. As a simple stupid example a democracy of 2 wolves and a sheep isn't fair either. The wolves would have a 66% say on that the sheep gets eaten.

Yes you are gloating. Nothng wrong with that. You hoped fr this outcome.

I don't mind the electoral voting system. This is how the U.S. does things. Fine.

But it also doesn't mean the California or New York voters are any less than Texan voters. So fact of the matter is that almost 50% of the individuals wanted person A and almost 50% wanted person B. That, no matter how you try to turn it, weigh it, twist it or reason it, makes it a divided country. If you add that the issues have made those vothers stand so far apart from each other and emotions are running high almost everywhere you look makes it worrying. It woud have been worrying if the other candidate had won, it isn't any less worying now.

If I may, as someone who swings for the blue team, I would like to offer my two cents.

What some people in this thread are ignoring (or, I'll be a little more charitable, perhaps forgetting) is the role of social media in all this. It's not always about who actually showed up to protest and outcry physically. I don't know about yours, but on my Facebook newsfeed, a lot of (what the young call) butthurt people said the same shit when Obama won and we told them to get over it.

Did they? Is the Pope Catholic? Do bears shit in the woods? (Maybe I should speak a little more directly, I have kind of a sense for the direction this crowd is leaning. Ahem...) They didn't do it immediately. Some of 'em never did. And those people are now using the same opportunity to rub their President-elect in our faces, and we are responding in kind.

Bearing that in mind, I'd like to know what it is some of you are smoking that makes you think it will go any differently now, and can I get some?

You can talk till the cows home about how we all need to band together and hope for the best and "Like it or hate it, he won." Well, they didn't listen when we said it. So, from where I'm sitting, they can be as happy as they wanna be. Meanwhile, until January 20, if we wanna cry and shout our lungs out and post whatever it is that makes us feel better, leave us the hell alone. Some very dark people with very dark leanings are back in full control, and some of us have lives and livelihoods to worry about now, so forgive us if we're not joining you in a chorus of... well... "The Frog Chorus," but there's a very good chance that in the next four (hopefully not eight) years, we won't be standing together as one, because some of us will be well ~~~~ed and far from home.

While I'm here... as long as I bring up four vs. eight... I did find part of Trump's victory speech most interesting and noteworthy. If memory serves, and it was recent so it should, he said, "I look very much forward to being your president, and hopefully at the end of two years or three years or four years, or maybe even eight years... you will say, so many of you worked so hard for us, but you will say that -- you will say that that was something that you really were very proud to do and I can."

Leaving aside the usual incoherence, take note of the nonsensical repetition that robs it of reason: "...at the end of two years or three years or four years..." I mean, I've never argued he was the brightest bulb on the string, but he does know it's a fixed term, yes? I think it's one of two things: he's either 1) smart enough to acknowledge that his belligerence may result in Armageddon or his being impeached before the end of his first term (to which we respond "NO SHIT, SHERLOCK!"), or 2) indicating when he fails to deliver he'll sneak out (let's call it "quitting under pressure" perhaps) before four years are up and leave Pence to shovel the shit, which, knowing his political leanings, is frankly even worse.

I understand that but the population density differences are SO VAST across the states if it really only went by popular vote as a reflection of who should win middle America may as well not vote at all. :(

On that note, you might be interested in this concept. Back in March, someone proposed merely amending the electoral college to more closely reflect the popular vote.

From where I stand, the premise behind founding the electoral college is simple: the average Joe cannot be 100 percent informed about the issues, the ramifications of them, or what impact a political decision may have. Fair enough. That's the purpose of having the electors to begin with, and as much as we think we're more informed, misinformation still fills the airwaves and the Internet. The logic behind having one is sound.

The problem is, the electoral college's process is currently flawed, due to pledges to vote for certain parties and candidates, and also due to gerrymandering. But you don't junk a car because it has a broken spring. You fix the parts that don't work. If we realign the electoral college so it's proportional to the popular vote, it could work better, and more accurately and consistently reflect the will of the people.

Try on their math for size. By these projections, Obama would still have won 2012, and Hillary would have slam-dunked this one.

Just because YOU believe it doesn't make it FACT.You are not so omnipotent that you get to decide what is fact. That just makes you arrogant, egotistical and closed-minded. It is your OPINION only. Others have the right to and can dislike and disagree with what YOU think.

You are 100% Caryl. Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote. It is because of the Electoral College that we have the result that we do.

Would you have accepted a Hillary Clinton electoral college vote win without the popular vote? ;)

I have posted plenty of information here and on post your thoughts when we spoke about Trump that is backed up by facts and evidence. There is plenty of factual evidence for the above comment. I can't be bothered to look it up for you to be honest because you won't believe it anyway.

And that is the biggest problem in American politics on both sides. If trump had one the popular vote with Clinton winning the EC, dems would never speak of the popular vote. Facts seem to be tools that only get used when it's convenient for one sides cause. The electoral college exists so the dem heavy population centers don't decide every election. Rural voters came out huge for trump, that's why the map you showed is so red.

The biggest mistake the establishment made was trying to crown Hillary president. They did everything they could to screw Bernie supporters and many of those came to trump as a result.

One thing I'll add, I don't think remember any Republican led riots when Obama won in 08' or 12. The way millennials are handling this election makes me truly worried for the future of the US and the world in general.

First, I would like to say thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread; I appreciate your thoughtful, well-articulated opinions. I also appreciate the support from my friends across the pond during what has been a very stressful time for us all. ;)

I know that most of you understand this already, but this is not about feeling "butthurt" that the red team won- this is very, very different. This is not my first election- "my" candidate has lost several times in the past, and while I haven't always been happy about those outcomes, I have never felt the sense of sadness and real fear that I have been experiencing the last two days. No matter how much I might have disagreed with a former president's policies, I always believed that they had respect for the office. IMO, Trump has not demonstrated that respect, so I don't feel he is deserving of mine. He is simply not fit to lead a country- any country.

His was a campaign that preyed on people's fears and legitimized hate. Whether his supporters took him seriously or not (and the office of the president is a serious issue), it sends the message that his racist, misogynist, homophobic rhetoric is okay. It isn't.

Would Hilary have been a perfect president? No. Things likely would have stayed much the same. But under Trump and some of the individuals who he is considering to put in office, they are likely to get much worse. Economists have predicted that there will be a bad recession, which is not got good news after we're finally crawling out of the hole of the last one. As Caryl said, many people believe that a Trump administration will undo much of the progress that this country has made over the years.

I thought your statement was ridiculous if you think that people are that easily swayed just because some celebrity says they should vote for this or that candidate. If they are, perhaps they shouldn't be voting in the first place, frankly. I think most people had their minds made up long ago. And how endorsing one candidate over the other is "limiting people's choices" is beyond me- there were still three names on the ballot. Besides, all that "star power" did Hillary no good in the end- Bruce showing up at the rally was pretty pointless, IMO, especially that late in the game. The only real reason to have a "concert" is to get people to come to the rally and listen to the speeches.

It was never about "poor" Alicia Machado, it was about proving how easily Trump's buttons could be pushed, and his behavior when that happens. The way he went off on social media (Lord help us) over something so unimportant is hardly appropriate for a world leader- talk about childish. If you don't understand why it's a problem, then I just don't know what to say. His own campaign had to take away his Twitter account before the election; if he can't be trusted to handle a social media account, how can we trust him to handle foreign relations?

Yes, really. What makes you think that any woman would want his filthy hands on them just because he's rich and powerful? :roll: That's akin to saying that a woman was asking to be raped because she was wearing a short skirt.

I don't need to read anything to know that the Trump campaign was just as dirty, if not more so. If you think it was any different, you're kidding yourself.

I shudder to think what kind of state this country might be in in four years.

It's also a numbers game, and both sides know how to play it.

Yep, he was very devious in his business dealings. When he ran out of money building one of his hotels, he simply didn't pay his vendors, forcing many of them into bankruptcy. In the next couple of weeks, he's due in court to face fraud and racketeering charges over his "University", which if he's convicted, could keep him from ever taking office.

Absolutely. I think that some of those people might soon be regretting that decision.

Logically, Adje, I understand that division is bad for the country (and it is divided, for sure). But I cannot support him as the president when every fiber in my being (*my* heart) tells me it's wrong. I don't think the protests are about the election being unfair so much as they are about not wanting Trump as an individual in office. I think Trump has alienated people to the degree that I don't know if we can ever be united.

Actually, it makes me happy to see the millenials speaking out. I think many of them didn't take it seriously enough, and now this is the result. Since we're so fond of maps and graphics here, ;) I saw one that indicated that if only millenials had voted, it would have been overwhelmingly blue.

Perhaps the protests (and protests surely are rooted in the fabric of democracy) are not just about not wanting Trump in office, but more about the very real fears people have of him being there, because short of him dropping off the perch, come 20th January he will be. They fear seeing social progress being dismantled, for their friends or themselves who may see their rights eroded, for those fearing deportation, many to a country they've never known. Because of an intransigent Congress, Obama has had to achieve much through Executive Orders, many of which Trump could reverse almost as he entered office (and has said he will). This could include rescinding the protection from deportation of 700,000 people; undoing years of progress toward reducing greenhouse-gas emissions (he has said he believes climate change is a hoax perpetrated by the Chinese); re-authorising waterboarding for suspected terrorists, as well as things that are a “hell of a lot worse,” like killing terrorists’ family members; dismantling the deal with Iran to curtail its nuclear development; reversing regulations that protect LGBT people from discrimination (something Pence will push .. the man is rabidly homophobic); immediately refusing to take Syrian refugees. And that's just for starters. He'll need to go to Congress for others, like doing away with Obama Care (which includes protection from discrimination for LGBTs), and may have a tussle over banning entry to all Muslims.

I do not expect anyone to have their rights taken away before they hold up their hand and say .. Excuse me? Those people need to make their voices heard now, will need help and support. They need our voices added to theirs, and imo we do not have the option of sitting it out without losing our humanity. The saying that all evil needs to flourish is for good men to stand by has never been more apposite.

Keep giving people that disagree with you on issues these labels and see what happens. Everything you say just becomes hot air after a while and the labels become useless.
"I think when it comes to immigration that.."
"RACIST!"
"I'm not sure about the bathroom..."
"HOMOPHOBE!"
Rosie O donnell vs Donald Trump
Rosie:"He annoys me on a multitude of levels," she said. "He’s the moral authority! Left the first wife, had an affair, left the second wife, had an affair, had kids both times but he’s the moral compass for 20-year-olds in America. Donald sit and spin my friend. I don't enjoy him. This is not a self made man"

Trump: "a woman out of control," a "true loser," a "total train wreck," "disgusting," a "slob," "fat, ugly"

"MISOGYNIST!!"

Yeah Trump hits back whether you are a man or a woman. Don't women want to be treated equally? Or you DO want special treatment? Make up your mind. ;)

The Clintons and Bushes have been directly and indirectly responsible for deaths of millions of people on this planet and causing a massive immigration wave into Europe. Maybe it's time to try different tactics instead of thinking you can police the world.
Obamacare is unaffordable for many through premium hikes and lack of competition. Maybe it would be good if that gets undone indeed or radically improved. Affordable healthcare when it's unaffordable and cannot be used because of massive deductibles is a joke.

If they cannot be swayed then they should not hold these concerts at all. These moron artists are being used as pawns in the political game. The Democrat campaign spent $1.5 Billion, Trump's camp only $500 million. That's smart, doing more and achieving more with less.

Yet you completely overlook the fact that Hillary brought this issue up in the presidential debate. It thus seems you approve of this character assassination tactic. Where did Trump bring up anything other than political choices and actions about Hillary during these debates? He didn't, he stayed on topic focusing on politics whilst Hillary went on a wild goose chase bringing up irrelevant nonsense from the 90s. The only time he deviated was the Bill Clinton rape accusations and pedophile Hillary as a lawyer case where she got the pedophile's sentence down and she later laughed at the fact she would never believe a polygraph again, thus indicating she knew he was completely guilty. Again these were actions (some alleged), but more than just Trump's words which seems all Hillary was going after. That and taxes. Weak I think as she is just describing countless individuals in America who are not necessarily breaking any laws.

A brief clip perhaps indicating that BBC News perhaps is accepting the Trump presidency yesterday showed the following arguments between Trump and Obama:
Obama: "This guy? Come on man. He ain't gonna be president."
Trump: "ISIS has been created as a direct result of the bad foreign decisions by president Obama and Secretary Clinton which had left a vacuum in Iraq and surrounding regions."

During that clip it was actually Trump who was the one who sounded presidential. Why Obama sometimes still uses street talk after almost 8 years of being a president I really don't understand. :roll:

So Trump has a bit of fun with Twitter. Look at the tweets now demanding his assassination. Social media leads to bad things quite often and it's the only time when a new president HAD to be elected that both candidates have been using it so much. It's not only Trump who has written bad things on Twitter and I'm sure he will be more presidential from January 20th onwards.

On that much discussed tape I'm pretty sure Trump was referring to what women LET you do in the celeb world. If many women are happy to get video taped during sex or prostitute themselves, yes I believe there are many who will let billionaires touch them anywhere. People can find it vile or disgusting and un-presidential but it is simply fact. Trying to remove our re-productive instincts completely from life is a fight you'll never win. Sure there is a time and place for that and not in the oval office but that tape was a private conversation regardless.

On the groping:
If a woman gets raped they should go to the police, file charges or start a lawsuit like several women did against alleged rapist and known adulterer Bill Clinton who was almost headed back into the white house. Women shouldn't wait until their rapist or groper perhaps, maybe, ever runs for presidency before coming forward. Total BS. I have already pointed out at least 4 of the grope accusers have been debunked. Yet you don't care about law and order, as if an accusation somehow sits above that. I'm all for equal rights, equal pay for women etc but you cannot have the situation where as soon as a woman shouts rape everyone should lose their jobs. The American electorate took law and order above sympathy at the ballot box. Trump had the backing of almost all police forces, army generals and border patrol etc. This is telling. Moving into a direction of feels only is something I don't think the USA will ever do fully even though it has happened quite a bit over here in Europe and is leading to problems as they influence political choices.

No you are ignorant if you don't even consider the collusion and criminality of what was exposed through Wikileaks and beyond. The emails go back to 2008 and criminal / suspicious behaviour has been going on for years including Tim Kaine already being picked as Hillary's VP back in June 2015! Trump only announced his presidential run 18 months ago. Indeed there could be bad tactics from the Trump campaign during this time. Show me the evidence however beyond reaction to action and beyond online campaigning (which Obama's camp did well and Hillary's camp didn't). Just assuming criminal behaviour is ridiculous. I can only make a judgement on evidence that is available.

You might be involved in less foreign wars over a period of 4 to 8 years. There will probably be a limitation of illegal immigrants and there might be more people in the labour force.
Obamas unemployment figures are skewed and includes part time jobs. There have never been this many people outside of the labour force (95 million) in the USA.

Many people have tried such learn through listening to an expert business models. If criminality is proven in court then fair enough but my guess is this case will be settled and everyone involved will be happy. This case is very different than putting the country at risk with storing classified government emails on a private server when you are secretary of state in my opinion.

It was this kind of elitist thinking that made people go to Trump. "We know what's best for you, you're gonna regret it if you don't vote our way." Michael Moore's estimation of what the British people think after Brexit is nonsense too. Almost everyone would vote the same way if the referendum were held again as polls have shown.

This is why the voting age should be raised to 21, 25 or even 30. Why is everyone voting only one way considered good? Because it aligns with how you vote? People need to step out of their own bubble more and consider both sides of the argument.

Yesterday's broadcast of a political debate show here in the UK was shocking. The only thing a woman from the Labour party could say was pretty much what social justice warriors always say. Telling you how to behave and what you should think and not talking policies that can improve people's lives. This is a total waste of time in politics at the moment. I used to be a member of the labour party and always voting for them. How they are behaving now is appealing to many youngsters but it will not win them elections.

I would argue many youngsters are completely uninformed these days. Over here, people were whining about 16 and 17 year olds not getting the brexit vote. The outcome wouldn't have been different regardless.
People who think they are clever because they have a degree, are at university or doing well at high school do not necessarily have common sense to behave in a rational manner. There is nothing wrong with a peaceful protest. But burning flags, smashing cars, looting are hardly the actions from people who peacefully vote and really believed in "Love Trumps Hate".

There were even riot "Ads" found on Craigslist and there is evidence some were bussed into the cities. There is evidence that George Soros has bankrolled Black Lives Matter in the past. Another beauty. Protesting in the name of criminals quite often. The FBI ought to investigate Soros. This rioting will only make inner cities worse. Indeed I find millennials who do this quite stupid because they are themselves then to blame for the lack of opportunities if businesses leave their cities because the owners don't feel safe because of these actions.

No-one cared enough about the failings of foreign wars and weapon supplies (including Libya which can mostly be attributed to Hillary Clinton) or the Islamic terrorist attacks to take to the street. No instead it's about someone's character, or someone's words they don't agree with. And many of that has been indoctrinated, taken out of context via the main stream media. Millennials happy to protest because of that? Marxism, propaganda and inciting violence at its worst.

Anyway those are my final thoughts. I'm sure there will be further attempts at rebuttals. ;)

Thought this was pretty good from a UK POV.

YouTube Video

Once again, you're focusing on the name-calling and ignoring the real issues. I really couldn't care less what he said about Rosie O'Donnell, except that it shows his character for what it is- he's a thin-skinned, reactive bully, and those are not the characteristics I want in my president. I want a president who is going to remain calm in a crisis situation and lead confidently, not pick up his phone and rant on Twitter.

If you believe there are problems with immigration, present a reasonable, rational argument, along with a realistic strategy how to fix the problem. Saying he's going to build a wall and make Mexico pay for it just makes him look like bigoted Uncle Donald ranting at Thanksgiving dinner- the family just laughs at him. I laughed at Trump for real when he said he could fix all the violence that occurs in Chicago (a majority of which occurs in the African-American community) in a week- it just makes him look like a fool.

I saw a picture posted on election day of a man in a polling place wearing a shirt that said, "Put the white back in the White House"- how can that be construed as anything but racist? I'd even consider it hate speech, which is illegal in this country. The same goes for the "Whites Only" message that was found scrawled in a high school bathroom in a suburb of Chicago yesterday.

As a woman, I don't believe that my reproductive rights should be dictated by the religious right and sexist men who believe that women should remain barefoot and pregnant.

The "bathroom law" had no basis in reality, and was instead based on ignorance and fear.

Hillary Clinton also had plans to make changes to the healthcare act; fix what is broken, don't throw out the entire thing because you don't like the administration that initiated it.

Speaking as someone who has worked in a healthcare field, privatization and competition are not necessarily good things (unless you are in the insurance business).

I'm not overlooking it, and it's not a character assassination tactic- he has demonstrated his character all throughout his campaign.

Please- he constantly deflected without directly answering the questions that were posed to him. That's because he doesn't really have any real answers except, "You'll see, it's gonna be great!"

I guess it's a good thing for him she didn't bring up the child rape allegations that Trump has being levelled against him. And I think the voting public has a right to know if a presidential candidate has paid his fair share of taxes when they are asked (or rather, required by law) to do the same.

Not unless they literally take it away from him, and it's already too late- the damage has been done.

You also cannot have a situation where when women do report it they are immediately branded a liar and threatened with lawsuits. That and similar reasons are why women do not come forward in the first place.

The same police forces that are now being accused of rampant corruption and racism; you're right- it is telling! :lol:

He needs to pay back all the money that he fraudulently took from people, but he will likely find some way to weasel out of it.

It's not elitist; I genuinely think that some people will not be happy with the consequences of this election. What's that saying about cutting off your nose just to spite your face?

If young men can be drafted into the military at the age of 18, they should also be allowed to vote at the age of 18. If they are expected to fight and potentially die for their country, they should have some say in how it is governed.

In the way that you're considering both sides? ;)

I didn't say that voting only one way is good. I said that if more young people voted, the results might have been very different. Young people should care and be involved, because they are the future of the country.

Maybe, but that could be fake (or planted) as well.

"Attempts at rebuttals"? How very smug of you! ;)

Well said, Caryl. When the Republicans were unhappy with Obama's win, and fought him tooth and nail every step of his presidency, no one told them to unite behind him. Now we are being told to just suck it up and deal with it- how is that fair? I fear that great harm can come to my country at the hands of these individuals, and I believe I have a right, if not a duty, to say and/or do something about it.

This thread seems to have a better more grown up debate than most of the presidential campaigns had.

its more surprising people not even in this country make more sense.