Trump for President. Who's hopping on the bandwagon? Who's digging a bunker?

storm rider

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
2,543
7
0
Calgary
I was glad to hear the result this morning when my radio woke me up for work.Obama in his 8 years ran the USA defecit from 8 TRILLION to 16 TRILLION.Had Killary been elected that defecit would be at 24 TRILLION after 4 years and the miasma of political correctness and pandering to special interest groups would be a lot worse than it is now and right now it is sickening.Not to mention the attention paid to the BS socialist agenda of "climate change" would be even worse.If only Haprer had won a second majority last election instead of Canadians electing the stammering shiny pony Trudeau.Damn what a combo of a Conservative Canadian Government and a Republican President who has a lock on both the Senate and the House of Representatives be.Keystone XL would start construction by next May and the filthy US Tides organization would get a new asshole torn for them.

Nothing but warm a fuzzy feelings that the leathery faced socialist Hillary got her ass handed to her after a damn good thrashing and now her career in politics is over because 3 things kill you in USA politics and they are being caught with a dead girl or a live boy and a failed presidential bid.Good riddance is all I can say.

SR
 

Horn_dawg

Member
Mar 19, 2006
339
9
18
While yes, Trump is all those things it was made blatantly obvious by the actual elites be it the Republican establishment, Wall Street, the MSM etc. that they did NOT want him in a position of power and would do anything to stop him... and the American public picked up on that and made him their choice.
They did that not because he is not part of the elite of the elite, it is because he would make a terrible president.

Also, don't believe for a moment there isn't a bunch of rich and powerful people behind Trump.
 

huggzy

Banned
May 30, 2010
616
2
18
He's actually right. Trump won more seats but Clinton won the popular vote, meaning more people actually voted for her (at least that was the latest tally at around midnight when Trump was declared president and all the media outlets stopped caring about updating the final vote count).
He was implying that Hillary has more support but that her voters didn't come out. Such a crock.

Tulega would never have even imagined that Trump had even remotely close to the support he had. Him, like every Hillary supporter in this election, simply can't grasp the reality that the woman that they were supporting is despised. She is an arrogant, egotistical, turd with zero morals, has an abysmal track record as a Secretary of State and in government (she voted for the Iraq war despite there were no WMD) who happily takes hundreds of millions in pay for play money from the middle east.

People are fucking mad and they weren't going to take more of the same bullshit they've been getting fed.

I find it unbelievable that so many of you people would support someone who takes that kind of money from these corrupt states while in government and not even acknowledge that its an issue.

Could you imagine what would happen if we found out that Justin Trudeau took in $25 million in undisclosed money from Saudi Arabia or $1million as a birthday gift from the government of Qatar - the kind of heat he would get? And NONE OF YOU who are crying about Hillary losing even acknowledge this as an issue.
 

storm rider

Banned
Dec 6, 2008
2,543
7
0
Calgary
He was implying that Hillary has more support but that her voters didn't come out. Such a crock.

Tulega would never have even imagined that Trump had even remotely close to the support he had. Him, like every Hillary supporter in this election, simply can't grasp the reality that the woman that they were supporting is despised. She is an arrogant, egotistical, turd with zero morals, has an abysmal track record as a Secretary of State and in government (she voted for the Iraq war despite there were no WMD) who happily takes hundreds of millions in pay for play money from the middle east.

People are fucking mad and they weren't going to take more of the same bullshit they've been getting fed.

I find it unbelievable that so many of you people would support someone who takes that kind of money from these corrupt states while in government and not even acknowledge that its an issue.

Could you imagine what would happen if we found out that Justin Trudeau took in $25 million in undisclosed money from Saudi Arabia or $1million as a birthday gift from the government of Qatar - the kind of heat he would get? And NONE OF YOU who are crying about Hillary losing even acknowledge this as an issue
.
STOP....just plain STOP.....Socialists dont like silly things like "facts".....they like gumdrops and lollypops....they like the common people to hook up a UNICORN to the furnace to heat their homes knowing they can feed it warm fuzzy feelings and rainbows as it heats their respective homes.....all the while the tax money from a "carbon tax" will make Canadians safer and better....even though it is a wealth transfer according to the socialist agenda.
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
2,287
1,371
113
He was implying that Hillary has more support but that her voters didn't come out. Such a crock.

Tulega would never have even imagined that Trump had even remotely close to the support he had. Him, like every Hillary supporter in this election, simply can't grasp the reality that the woman that they were supporting is despised. She is an arrogant, egotistical, turd with zero morals, has an abysmal track record as a Secretary of State and in government (she voted for the Iraq war despite there were no WMD) who happily takes hundreds of millions in pay for play money from the middle east.

People are fucking mad and they weren't going to take more of the same bullshit they've been getting fed.

I find it unbelievable that so many of you people would support someone who takes that kind of money from these corrupt states while in government and not even acknowledge that its an issue.

Could you imagine what would happen if we found out that Justin Trudeau took in $25 million in undisclosed money from Saudi Arabia or $1million as a birthday gift from the government of Qatar - the kind of heat he would get? And NONE OF YOU who are crying about Hillary losing even acknowledge this as an issue.

No I think what was meant was that Hillary winning the popular vote, but losing, shows something about the fucked-up electoral system. Republican, Democrat - that's not the issue. It is just odd that the US does not use direct election by vote count, as other modern presidential republics do. Almost all of the states are winner-take-all. Perhaps that should change, so more of them are like Maine. After all, the way it is now, it's like pretending that there are no Republicans in California, no Democrats in Alabama, etc. Doesn't benefit either party to change to that - it just makes the result more accurate. In any case, that is a separate issue.

As for Hillary and her team specifically, the vote count is little consolation. Getting 70% of the vote in California would be tactically no better than getting 50.01%. Her supporters might have been extra outraged about Trump, but they were also over-concentrated in areas where excess votes were simply wasted: the usual list of fashionable urban areas.

Really, the reason HRC lost was that she lost all the areas where Bernie Sanders had the highest support - the industrial heartland, where the neoliberal establishment Democrats alienated the working class blue-collar voters. Bernie spoke their language and had their support - it's not like these areas are the Republican "base". It was still winnable for the Democrats - yes, even under Hillary. Her team just failed to recognize this, and ran a shit campaign based solely on denouncing Trump's personality and pretending they hadn't given Bernie the shaft.

As Michael Moore said, the voters in these places wanted to justfiably throw a firebomb onto Washington DC, and Trump was it.


*And yes, the fact that the US political elite accept money from foreign sources like the Saudis, Israelis, Qatar, George Soros, etc. should cause great alarm among citizens. Establishment Republicans have the same ties - and I bet they will resist any Trump attempts to put an end to that.
 

PuntMeister

Punt-on!
Jul 13, 2003
2,231
1,421
113
This just in...

Canada will be annexing the three western-most states, so that the democrats don't have to move all the way up to Canada. But to qualify for Canadian status, the states will be renamed as provinces, and given much more Canadian sounding names. Here they are:
1) Worshingchuk
2) Ora-Gone
3) Calinada

Welcome to Canada.

There was interest in bringing Neveradda along too, but then we'd have to put up with too many Elvis impersonators.
 

Tugela

New member
Oct 26, 2010
1,913
1
0
He was implying that Hillary has more support but that her voters didn't come out. Such a crock.

Tulega would never have even imagined that Trump had even remotely close to the support he had. Him, like every Hillary supporter in this election, simply can't grasp the reality that the woman that they were supporting is despised. She is an arrogant, egotistical, turd with zero morals, has an abysmal track record as a Secretary of State and in government (she voted for the Iraq war despite there were no WMD) who happily takes hundreds of millions in pay for play money from the middle east.

People are fucking mad and they weren't going to take more of the same bullshit they've been getting fed.

I find it unbelievable that so many of you people would support someone who takes that kind of money from these corrupt states while in government and not even acknowledge that its an issue.

Could you imagine what would happen if we found out that Justin Trudeau took in $25 million in undisclosed money from Saudi Arabia or $1million as a birthday gift from the government of Qatar - the kind of heat he would get? And NONE OF YOU who are crying about Hillary losing even acknowledge this as an issue.
Clinton got more votes than Trump.

In any case, it was clear from the polls that it was going to be very close after Comey released his letter. Polls had them even or Trump in the lead in key battleground states.

And give it up about voting for the Iraq war. So did most of the rest of Congress/Senate. They would not have expected the President and his office to be flat out lying about that. And most of the US general population agreed with that vote.

Clinton did not take any money, that money was donated to a CHARITY, that actually does charitable work, unlike Trump's "charity".

There was nothing wrong with Clinton as Secretary of State, she did a good job at it. Most of the negativity around here has been the result of an unrelenting assault on the Clintons by right wing media for the last two decades. The right wing assumed that they were the natural party for the presidency after Reagan, and never forgave Clinton for being a southerner who defeated Bush. Because of that they have been saying these lies about the Clintons over and over and over and over, people who only get their news from those sources assume that it has to be true. It is not. It is actually a two decade long smear campaign. They did the same thing against Obama, from the very first day he took office. They will pull the same crap against any Democrat who holds the office, because they have seen that these despicable tactics work.
 

Cock Throppled

Well-known member
Oct 1, 2003
4,979
893
113
Upstairs
Clinton got more votes than Trump.

In any case, it was clear from the polls that it was going to be very close after Comey released his letter. Polls had them even or Trump in the lead in key battleground states.

And give it up about voting for the Iraq war. So did most of the rest of Congress/Senate. They would not have expected the President and his office to be flat out lying about that. And most of the US general population agreed with that vote.

Clinton did not take any money, that money was donated to a CHARITY, that actually does charitable work, unlike Trump's "charity".

There was nothing wrong with Clinton as Secretary of State, she did a good job at it. Most of the negativity around here has been the result of an unrelenting assault on the Clintons by right wing media for the last two decades. The right wing assumed that they were the natural party for the presidency after Reagan, and never forgave Clinton for being a southerner who defeated Bush. Because of that they have been saying these lies about the Clintons over and over and over and over, people who only get their news from those sources assume that it has to be true. It is not. It is actually a two decade long smear campaign. They did the same thing against Obama, from the very first day he took office. They will pull the same crap against any Democrat who holds the office, because they have seen that these despicable tactics work.
Give it up. She lost because she was worse than even Trump. That's saying something.

Turnout was about 52%, but guess where the biggest fall-offs were? In midwest states she won.

And guess how many votes less than Obama got in 2012, that she got in 2016? Six Million!!

She was a re-tread, career politician who couldn't inspire enough supporters to put down their Cheetos and joints, to go out and vote for her.

Blaming Comey, or Russia or voter suppression are all red herrings.

The Democrats fucked up big time by foisting Clinton onthe public when they were clamouring for change.

Well, they got some change handed to them.
 

rlock

Well-known member
May 20, 2015
2,287
1,371
113
This just in...

Canada will be annexing the three western-most states, so that the democrats don't have to move all the way up to Canada. But to qualify for Canadian status, the states will be renamed as provinces, and given much more Canadian sounding names. Here they are:

Let's just start with Alaska, OK? Then let's chew on Washington state. Not Oregon though - if we did, the number of avant-garde food trucks would reach critical mass.



Give it up. She lost because she was worse than even Trump. That's saying something.

Turnout was about 52%, but guess where the biggest fall-offs were? In midwest states she won.

And guess how many votes less than Obama got in 2012, that she got in 2016? Six Million!!

She was a re-tread, career politician who couldn't inspire enough supporters to put down their Cheetos and joints, to go out and vote for her.

Blaming Comey, or Russia or voter suppression are all red herrings.

The Democrats fucked up big time by foisting Clinton onthe public when they were clamouring for change.

Well, they got some change handed to them.

I don't think she was worse, but definitely a step back (relative to Obama) towards the discredited establishment that authored the 2008 financial crisis, the regime change insanity of Iraq & Ukraine & Libya & Syria, and the ongoing plague of litigiousness and professional offense-taking.

The Democrat big-shots wanted a coronation for Hillary, and the shameful underhanded way they reacted to Sanders' genuine challenge to her was not forgotten by their own party members on election day.

It didn't take much of a depressed Dem vote to turn the tide - it was still a close election.
 
Last edited:

huggzy

Banned
May 30, 2010
616
2
18
Give it up. She lost because she was worse than even Trump. That's saying something.

Turnout was about 52%, but guess where the biggest fall-offs were? In midwest states she won.

And guess how many votes less than Obama got in 2012, that she got in 2016? Six Million!!

She was a re-tread, career politician who couldn't inspire enough supporters to put down their Cheetos and joints, to go out and vote for her.

Blaming Comey, or Russia or voter suppression are all red herrings.

The Democrats fucked up big time by foisting Clinton onthe public when they were clamouring for change.

Well, they got some change handed to them.
Good post.

To Tugela,

I love how the pro-Killary contingent loves to blame Comey too. As if Comey was responsible for Killary to set up her email on a private server. As if Comey was responsible for her destroying those 33,000 emails which resulted in her losing any benefit of the doubt (and should have lead to her being indicted like every other US citizen has and would be). As if Comey was responsible for Wikileaks releasing all this damning information on the Clinton's and their staff. As if Comey was responsible for exposing classified documents to the world at large through that unsecured email.

Killary should be thanking Comey for not indicting her like the FBI should have along with thanking Loretta Lynch. He at least gave Killary a chance at getting a pardon from Obama if she happened to win the election.

And as far as "give it up about Iraq". I personally will never forgive anyone who votes to drop bombs on a people when there is no evidence. I don't forgive any of those congressmen who voted that way, and I would never support a leader who made a decision with no basis of fact to support it. That is bad leadership and the fact that you ignore it means that your opinion should also be ignored.

And its a joke when you say that the Clinton Foundation was all for charity. Since when do charities spend $3 million on the wedding of the Secretary of State's daughter - yeah, that's Chelsea Clinton's wedding. And we love how these charities pay their huge wages to their directors. And again you're forgetting that the Clinton's get to keep their speaking fees from this too, right?

And maybe you should see how effective this Clinton Foundation is at distributing all these funds. Apparently they are very good at distributing it to their favored contractors and back to themselves, but very little gets out to where its supposed to go. Do a little reading on Haiti and see how well the Clintons are viewed over there.

Seriously Tugela you are so blinded by your politics that you can't see the bullshit being thrown into your face.
 

westwoody

Well-known member
Jun 10, 2004
7,430
6,589
113
Westwood
The popular vote is not how Presidents are selected.
The Electoral College has a definite purpose, to balance the power of populous states against smaller states.
Complaining about the Electoral College signals a lack of understanding how the election system works.
And would these people be whining about the Electoral College if she had won?

For all the whining about Hillary getting more votes but not winning:
Hillary got 630,000 more votes as of this moment.
The number of non-voters is about 46,000,000.
73 times as many!!!
So blame the Hillary supporters who did not get off their fat lazy entitled asses to vote.
Don't blame the Electoral College.
 

clu

Active member
Oct 3, 2010
1,270
14
38
Vancouver
The electoral college is an academic discussion. Every time this happens people get up in arms about it. Maybe there's merit to reform as there is here (e.g. one could debate why a less populated state deserves a disproportionate advantage in representation), but Clinton's ship has sailed either way. No one is going to reverse the decision on December 19th because no one wants to start a second civil war. (Though ironically one of the purposes of the electoral college was as a stopgap to veto this very scenario... where someone unqualified swayed the public opinion.)

That said the critical analysis of Obama didn't stop when Romney exited the picture. So yeah Trump is the president but he still deserves the criticism that's levelled at him whether you think Clinton would've been better or worse. All evidence is he's going to make a pretty shoddy president.

(As an aside, I'm impressed the mods haven't shut down this thread yet. I was sure it would be gone the day after the election even if it made it that far.)
 

Hugh Jass

Banned
May 11, 2015
306
1
16
(As an aside, I'm impressed the mods haven't shut down this thread yet. I was sure it would be gone the day after the election even if it made it that far.)
Because although strong opinions are being expressed it hasnt gotten to the screaming at each other stage, its still a rational discussion with viewpoints being expressed. When and if it gets nasty they will shut it down pdq.
 

johnniejetpack

come fly with Johnnie....
Feb 6, 2008
1,879
166
63
we elected him so we have to deal with it for 4 years. people will realize that he's just a bullshit sales guy and he will fall on his face when it comes to actually doing something
 

wetnose

Well-known member
Mar 23, 2003
2,068
474
83
South Vancouver
Fred Reed from fredoneverything.org:

All right, we have him. My reaction to Trump’s victory is barely of interest to me, and so it may be that the world is not waiting in quiet desperation for an account. I have no information on this matter from Ulan Bator or Sulawesi. Insofar as my reaction was that of half of the country, it may be of note.

My reaction was, “Yes! Yes! Yessss!”

This of course is because like all of Trump’s supporters I am sick of corruption, oligarchs, New York, candidate’s who sell state favors surrounded by serial rapists and goofy-looking pedophiles, and the goddamned bought-and-paid-for media.

And then I wondered how much I should be delighted. I am not a particularly enthusiastic Trump fan. The man seems radically incoherent, almost nutty. What now? Of the things Trump has promised, which, if any, make sense? Which are unthought-out huff and puff? From what will he back away? Will he transmute himself by degrees into Hillary?

For example, his Wall. As a metaphorical expression of opposition to immigration, it serves well. As a practical project? No. What are the specifics? A Wall made of what? How high, how deep under ground, requiring how much of what materials? Do the arithmetic on yards of concrete and feet of rebar and then pour yourself a stiff drink. Flimsy is cuttable, tall requires only a taller ladder.

Electronic monitoring sounds good, but would require either use of the military as a domestic police force to patrol the Wall–hello, Guatemala–or a huge new federal bureaucracy working three shifts, often housed in barracks in uninhabited country. Helicopters, sensors, big contracts for the same.

Things that would actually work to discourage illegals, such as heavy prosecution of people hiring illegals, this by using federal laws already on the books and a Justice Department he will control, do not feature greatly in his talk. Uh…why not?

He wants to put a thirty percent (or whatever: he isn’t consistent) tariff on goods made by American companies in China and brought back for sale in the US. So an iPad goes from $1000 to $1300, whereupon Samsung corners the market. So he puts an equal tariff on Samsung’s tablets. The effect is of a heavy tax on the American consumer.

The underlying problem is that if labor is a dollar an hour in Bangladesh, and $40 an hour in America after including benefits, bringing jobs back to America is going to make things much more expensive for Americans. Breaking unions, which are irrelevant today anyway, or charges of currency manipulation will not make enough of a difference to make a difference.

Trump has said that he will rid the country of illegals, of whom there are between ten and fifteen million, in eighteen months to two years. Anyone want to make bets on this? He seems to have backed off, as he seems to back from many things that got him elected.

He wants to end welfare for illegals. This would have the desired effect on unemployed illegals, but a lot of welfare comes from states, no? Does he have the authority?

He has talked of removing citizenship from children of illegals. If he does this by executive order, he will establish a new Presidential power to revoke citizenship of anyone he pleases. Otherwise the question will assuredly go to a hostile Supreme Court. Can he make a state stop offering schooling to children of his choice?

And of course ending benefits for children of illegals will result in night after night of television of poor little Rosita Gomez, aged eight, being dragged in tears and perhaps handcuffs from second grade by brutal federal marshals when all she wants to to learn English and be a good American, etc. Will California buy into this? Will the country?

He has talked of getting American troops out of Japan and South Korea on grounds that those countries can pay for their own defense if they want it. Good idea. However, it would mean the end of the American Empire in Asia. This would fly like space ships with the public–who really gives a damn about the Empire?–but would face squalling, roaring opposition from NATO, the Neocons, the arms industry, imperialists. and the international welfare clients–countries benefiting from free American stuff.

Bucking these would take great, clanking brass balls and a really good ballistic vest. Does he have them? Already he seems to be backing off removal of troops from South Korea.

He talks of getting out of, or disbanding, NATO. Great idea. NATO’s real purpose is to keep Europe under Washington’s control and to supply sepoys to provide a thin coating of legitimacy to imperial wars in places like Afghanistan–not excessively a North Atlantic country, but never mind. The idea that Europe, with over twice Russia’s 145 million people, and a much greater economy, needs America to defend it against an uninterested Russia–nuff said. But hey, exuberate the rubes, scare’m, tell them you will protect them, send money. Works every time. Can Trump stand up to this?

I hope so. I bet not.

He was going to ban Muslims. This seems to have disappeared from his web site. Again, backing off.

In short, I think he can’t do or won’t do most of the things he said he would do. The question here is not whether he should do them–I think several are splendid ideas–but whether he can or will.

End “sanctuary cities”? How? By cutting off federal funding, he has suggested. Will he use an executive order–that is, do it by fiat? If he can cut off funding to one city for one reason, he can cut off funding to any city for any reason. (Another interesting new power.) Didn’t Congress use to have something to do with funding?

In his policies on immigration, he faces three grave problems. First, Mexicans at least are not behaving badly enough. While most people would happily keep more from coming in there is no groundswell for kicking them out–furious internet commentators notwithstanding. Second, the President doesn’t have the legal authority to dictate local policies. Can he tell Los Angeles not to treat Latinos in hospitals? To stop issuing driver’s licenses? Third, in places with large Latino populations he will run into passive resistance. A city that doesn’t want to find illegals won’t.

My predictions, subject to ingestion of crow: No ethnic cleansing of illegals. No wall. No tight ban on Muslims. No punishment of sanctuary cities. No termination of welfare by states. No major decrease in military deployments. No war with Russia. Few or no jobs repatriated.
 

overdone

Banned
Apr 26, 2007
1,828
442
83
Well, they got some change handed to them.
the "handed to them" is bullshit

in the 3 or 4 so states that mattered, it was literally a toss up, coin flip

Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, all are basically within 1%

just like the idiots on Fox trying to say this is a resounding rejection of the idiots on the extreme left, it's also not a mandate for the nut jobs on the extreme right

a few hundred thousand and in some cases less than a 100G's and it's flipped the other way

hardly a decisive victory or defeat either way

they both got around 25% of eligible voters

and change, really, the US still going on 20yrs now has had an incompetent leader, George W, Obama, now the Orangutan, would have continued with Gramma in a pant suit too

hardly any difference between them, looks like continuity to me

problem is, the whole world has been and will be paying for it for yrs to come
 
Vancouver Escorts