Donald Trump for President Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
would you want to change the system if the democrats had won the election?
I really dislike this argument. Mainly because it attacks the political will of the person rather than the merit of the argument.

Yes. If we continue to have situations in which the popular vote and the electoral college are at odds, the system needs to be changed. The systems is no longer working for the majority of voting Americans as they are being ruled by the will of a minority share of voters.

I liked @neil999 's idea in which the Electoral college and popular vote have to agree for the election to be valid. In the event of disagreement, maybe a runoff, maybe send it all back to the primaries. But it suggests a divided country and/or bad options.
 
I really dislike this argument. Mainly because it attacks the political will of the person rather than the merit of the argument.

Yes. If we continue to have situations in which the popular vote and the electoral college are at odds, the system needs to be changed. The systems is no longer working for the majority of voting Americans as they are being ruled by the will of a minority share of voters.

I liked @neil999 's idea in which the Electoral college and popular vote have to agree for the election to be valid. In the event of disagreement, maybe a runoff, maybe send it all back to the primaries. But it suggests a divided country and/or bad options.

french have a run off, which SHOULD keep out le pen...
 
I didn't follow the election closely so am genuinely unsure of this: was there a point when Hillary mentioned details of how she would reinvigorate the rust belt and detailed plans for good jobs there?
 
I didn't follow the election closely so am genuinely unsure of this: was there a point when Hillary mentioned details of how she would reinvigorate the rust belt and detailed plans for good jobs there?

yes:
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

not like anyone bothered to report it

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/1...bandoned-policy-coverage-2016-campaign/214120
"Since the beginning of 2016, ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News and NBC Nightly News have devoted just 32 minutes to issues coverage, according to Andrew Tyndall.

Differentiating issues coverage from daily campaign coverage where policy topics might be addressed, Tyndall defines issues coverage by a newscast this way: “It takes a public policy, outlines the societal problem that needs to be addressed, describes the candidates' platform positions and proposed solutions, and evaluates their efficacy.”

And this remarkable finding from Tyndall [emphasis added]:

No trade, no healthcare, no climate change, no drugs, no poverty, no guns, no infrastructure, no deficits. To the extent that these issues have been mentioned, it has been on the candidates' terms, not on the networks' initiative.

These numbers are staggering in terms of the complete retreat they represent from issues-orientated campaign coverage. Just eight years ago, the last time both parties nominated new candidates for the White House, the network newscasts devoted 220 minutes to issues coverage, compared to only 32 minutes so far this year. (CBS Evening News went from 119 minutes of issues coverage in 2008 to 16 this year.)

Note that during the Republican primary season alone, the networks spent 333 minutes focusing on Donald Trump. Yet for all of 2016, they have set aside just one-tenth of that for issue reporting.

And look at this: Combined, the three network newscasts have slotted 100 minutes so far this year for reporting on Hillary Clinton’s emails while she served as secretary of state, but just 32 minutes for all issues coverage. (NBC’s Nightly News has spent 31 minutes on the emails this year; just eight minutes on issues.)

Indeed, this approach used to be a hallmark of presidential campaign reporting; outline what candidates stand for, describe what their presidency might look like, and compare and contrast that platform with his or her opponents. i.e. What would the new president’s top priorities be on the first day of his or her new administration?

It seems clear that the media’s abandonment of issues coverage benefits Trump since his campaign has done very little to outline the candidate’s core beliefs. Clinton, by contrast, has done the opposite.

As the Associated Press reported, “Trump’s campaign has posted just seven policy proposals on his website, totaling just over 9,000 words. There are 38 on Clinton’s ‘issues’ page, ranging from efforts to cure Alzheimer’s disease to Wall Street and criminal justice reform, and her campaign boasts that it has now released 65 policy fact sheets, totaling 112,735 words.”

nice how you can still donate to the campaign though...
 
The problems in Detroit stem much further back than the last 8 years.

I think folks are forgetting the state of this country when Obama took office. We were in the midst of an economic meltdown when he took over.

indeed...
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10233.html
k10233.gif
 
The problems in Detroit stem much further back than the last 8 years.

I think folks are forgetting the state of this country when Obama took office. We were in the midst of an economic meltdown when he took over.

Detroit is what Liverpool would have looked like, if Heseltine hadn't managed to stop what some of the people around Thatcher wanted to do.

As for Obama, he has at least left the US in a better place than he found it; but he has come nowhere near the (admittedly absurdly high) expectations that he went in with.
 
Those protesters are trying to fuel up a race war

Van Jones (MSNBC) with his shocking claims about 'WHITELASH' was perfect start for this.

He said that on CNN, not MSNBC. (edit) I am not sure he was trying to start a race war, but it was a profoundly daft thing to come out with.
 
This, but sadly this is part of the standard operating procedure for progressives of the Clinton / Blair type; just look at how Corbyn has been portrayed as a violent, woman-hating antisemitic thug because of what people on twitter have said about some other people have got up to.

IIRC they were trying to do the same to Bernie Sanders during the primaries, suggesting that because there weren't that many black faces in pictures of the crowds that went to see him that it meant that he was a racist.

yup
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...l-hillary-and-face-down-the-testosterone-left

you can read about how this was planned in the podesta emails

they all do this, of course
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/18566
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I really dislike this argument. Mainly because it attacks the political will of the person rather than the merit of the argument.

Yes. If we continue to have situations in which the popular vote and the electoral college are at odds, the system needs to be changed. The systems is no longer working for the majority of voting Americans as they are being ruled by the will of a minority share of voters.

I liked @neil999 's idea in which the Electoral college and popular vote have to agree for the election to be valid. In the event of disagreement, maybe a runoff, maybe send it all back to the primaries. But it suggests a divided country and/or bad options.
Fair enough. There has only been a popular vote/electoral college split three times overall but twice in the last five elections. Neither candidate cracked 48% this time
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top