"I'm going to vote for this insane idiot (yeah, @samoth, he's both) in the hope that he does the opposite of what he says, while doing exactly what he says on the select few of the policies that I agree with??"

Hey, it's working so far. Trump's been pro-gun for long before he was running for president, so I'm hoping it's a safe bet on that part. If not, he probably wouldn't be worse than Hillary anyway.

I don't think this will be a constant thing though. This will probably be 1 very weird election, where people didn't like either candidate, and voted based on the candidate's closed-door policies, instead of their public platforms.

Ah conquestor3, it's too late to be sounding the "he's like every other politician" horn. We've telling you about that for months and you wouldn't listen. Have your cake and eat it too.

I think you misunderstood. I WANTED him to flip his positions. I'm happy at his changing stances on the wall/abortion/gay marriage. In this case I got my cake (no hillary) and get to eat it, too (TPP is dead).

I think I said as much even in the first Trump thread, where I said that the wall (While affordable) wouldn't accomplish anything.

There are a few positions I hope he isn't flipping on, though (Constitutional carry being one).

Really?

"I'm going to vote for this insane idiot (yeah, @samoth, he's both) in the hope that he does the opposite of what he says, while doing exactly what he says on the select few of the policies that I agree with??"

This is why we need an IQ test for voting.

Ahh fuck it. Burn the world, humanity is too stupid to live on it anyway... :angry:

It does seem rather hopeless doesn't it?

@L.Spiro: I feel your pain man, like actually.

This is why we need an IQ test for voting.

Oh please, they won't even bring up the ID.

Ah conquestor3, it's too late to be sounding the "he's like every other politician" horn. We've telling you about that for months and you wouldn't listen. Have your cake and eat it too.

I think you misunderstood. I WANTED him to flip his positions. I'm happy at his changing stances on the wall/abortion/gay marriage. In this case I got my cake (no hillary) and get to eat it, too (TPP is dead).

I think I said as much even in the first Trump thread, where I said that the wall (While affordable) wouldn't accomplish anything.

There are a few positions I hope he isn't flipping on, though (Constitutional carry being one).

Well, in an earlier thread you seemed to suggest that systematic racial discrimination by police wasn't a well-documented phenomenon that actually exists. It also seemed like you thought that the existence of good Muslim people wasn't a good enough reason to treat Islam the same way as any other religion.

Maybe neither of those things are actually what you meant (if so feel free to clarify), but even so, it certainly seems like you're pretty isolated from the people who would be most negatively impacted by Trump's most fringe positions. That makes betting on Trump changing his positions much less risky for you than it would be for people whom Trump's most extreme positions would actually hurt. It's much easier to say "I mean, I didn't think he'd really build the wall" if you're already safely inside of it, since you won't be punished if you're wrong.

As I've said before, Trump is full of surprises, so I'm going to remain optimistic that he turns out to be someone who both wants to support all Americans and is able to do so successfully until I'm proven wrong. But I also can see why most people weren't willing to take a risk on Trump being something other than what he said he'd be, even with Hillary as the alternative. Personally, my biggest concern is that Trump seems to be very loyal, to the point that he might feel like he "owes" something to even his most extreme supporters. And as you've acknowledged, these extreme elements were ultimately something he needed in order to win. The appointment of Steve Bannon, as well as the people he seems to be considering for cabinet positions, does seem to suggest that he could be valuing loyalty at the expense of pragmatism.

(...)

This is why we need an IQ test for voting.

Yep, there's no way that could possibly go wrong.

The appointment of Steve Bannon, as well as the people he seems to be considering for cabinet positions, does seem to suggest that he could be valuing loyalty at the expense of pragmatism.

Yes, as the various far-right people and general wackjobs start making up his team I think the "give him a chance" idea has gone out the window.

Indeed it might well have been Wackjob Bannon who a few days ago restated that a wall 'would happen' and it was a matter of working out who will pay...

On behalf of Trump hitting that nuke instead of the nurse button.

Of course that is not how it works in real life. But. The dangerous play with war starts way, WAY before that. Badly chosen words, big egos by world leaders, all that can lead to a situation were war is one possible outcome. The more power is concentrated on a single person, the more real this danger becomes.

But even so, if the american president acts like a dick in front of other world leader, even IF consequences are not immidiate nuclear retaliation, the consequences can be severe. Economical, diplomatic, even lead to a new cold war.

If the president says stupid things, the other leaders and institutions of the US can also not just tell the world that these words have no meaning. its the effing president who dropped these verbal bombs. Best we get will be a "he didn't mean it like that".

One of the great things about Obama was that he was a natural speaker. A really talented one. And his speeches often were well written and thought out. Might be that Trump now tells his ghostwriters to change gears and write less "edgy" speeches for him. I fear he still lacks the talent, and cool head when it comes to handle delicate situations in his speeches.

If someone still fears the sky is falling, MOST probably he/she is less afraid of Trump, which at least changed his verbal gears. And most probably will NOT do much on his own due to is inexpierience.

What these persons are afraid of is most probably the people Trump will surround himself with. We have Pence, which seems to be a hardcore christian and very rightwing politician. There is Bannon, which seems to be rather a very rightwing news site chairman than someone with a political expierience.

Sure, these are just 2 names of 4000 he has to replace. But depending on his other decisions, this might turn out to be a horror cabinet for minority and more liberal people. They might not do much harm without the senat, where more traditional republican politicians still are the majority. But it could mean that even if Trump now changes his rethorics, other could keep feeding the fire with hate speeches. Trump could delegate that to someone who isn't the president.

Then there is the right extremist mob among the Trump followers. He got them out on the streets and in the mood. They will now not just say "oh, Trump didn't mean it like that, well then, lets put those KKK-hats back into the drawer". They are feeling empowered. And they are NOT controlled by Trump, if anything, it could be the other way.

Try to make it sound like its all fake news, and people being paranoid. The fear is real, and the reason for it grounded in facts. Even if the news would be fake, doesn't make the fact that people are getting more openly racist and sexist now that Trump made this a "thing" untrue.

Why do we even have political campains then?

Short answer: because the people is stupid, and democracy does not work (q.e.d.). But it's the system that is in place, and it's the system those who want to rule work with. After Obama was elected, I talked with a woman (middle management at a S&P500 company, she voted Trump by the way) and out of curiosity wanted to know exactly why she voted for this particular candidate. The answer was: Oh, he has such a nice wife. There you go.

sorry for the harsh tone, but what you are suggesting is that trump is a blatant liar, and that thats a good thing

No offense taken. Of course he is a liar (all politicians are), but he is the lesser liar compared to Clinton or Clinton's wife. Most of what Trump says is actually kinda true (or perceived true, or wishful thinking). Most of what the Clintons say is outright lies, to an almost-criminal or criminal extent.

The probably best example is this: One guy who certainly didn't grab a pussy (because his Slovenian wife would kick him where it really hurts) says "Hahaha... grab them by the pussy", and the left propaganda machine makes him the Devil. A different guy actually had intercourse with a subordinate young woman, unfairly exploiting her age and position, and what's worst, he gave false testimony about it. That's OK. No, he is not a liar, why would he be. The same could be said about the many cases in which Mrs. Clinton has been caught lying and cheating, only the comparison is not so striking because there is no direct 1:1 match as with Trumps "pussy grab" remark. I am not even going to elaborate what I personally think about a woman who puts her political zeal over her marriage. Tells a lot about a character.

While I agree that for someone who plans to become the ruler of a major country, saying such a thing is maybe not the most... appropriate thing, and it is not the most respectful way of addressing women either. But that aside, it is certainly what a lot of men (whether they admit to it or not) think, and sadly also very close to the truth. Maybe you can't have every woman and do everything (like Trump said) but you can have most and do most things, if you are rich or powerful or privileged in another way (I'd say about 3/4 of all women are susceptible to this). Which, as I can tell from personal experience, is not at all a good thing because with the dollar signs in their eyes you never know whether they really love you you or your money, or your title.

Now he's saying "Mexicans here legally that hvaen't committed crimes are great people, I need to decide what to do with them after we get the criminals out.

Which is funnily just what I said he would be saying after the election. This was 100% certain because there are no USA without the Mexicans. If you sleep in a hotel, who do you think made your bed? Who do you think is the janitor? Who do you think washes the sheets and brings out the garbage? Who do you think trimmed the trees in your street? The Mexicans do an awful lot of work, usually not the nicest kind of work, and for little money.

Personally, my biggest concern is that Trump seems to be very loyal, to the point that he might feel like he "owes" something to even his most extreme supporters. And as you've acknowledged, these extreme elements were ultimately something he needed in order to win. The appointment of Steve Bannon, as well as the people he seems to be considering for cabinet positions, does seem to suggest that he could be valuing loyalty at the expense of pragmatism.

I don't think it has much to do about how Trump "feels". This is how politics works. Bannon was his Chief Executive for his campaign, and Trump gave him this position for a reason. How on earth can someone think that he *wouldn't* be rewarded with an important position when Trump would be elected? Same for the "alt-right", the rabid anti-feminists and people that think "cultural marxism" is a real thing that is threatening the Western Civilization, and that white men are somehow the most persecuted demographic at the moment. That was his most vocal base. The guy has political debts to pay, especially if he wants the same people to fuel his campaign in the 2020 elections. A large percentage of his victory is owed to them.

People that think Trump will now ignore those people are at this point deluding themselves. For example, Bannon controls Breitbart media. If Trump somehow decided to ignore him, the guy wouldn't hesitate to turn on him in a second and use his media power to convince the "alt-right" that they were betrayed, and that now they must do away with Trump and find a candidate that actually *means* what he says. This is such basic logic that I'm dumbfounded by the people that believe Trump can afford to simply "do away" with his more loyal and vocal base that basically drove him to victory and flip-flop on the positions they, individually, want him to flip-flop. What the hell. He owes very little to you people. You just voted for him. You come and go. Other people gained him tens of thousands of votes with constant effort, and can do the same in the future, expand the loyal base they created for him, or abandon him, depending on how loyal he is to them. You are not "his base" the same way they are, and he does not owe you the debts he owes to them.

I find it especially funny that almost every white male in my family didn't vote, and every female did vote, and they voted unanimously for Trump.

In my case, I unexpectedly happened to be a half-dozen hours away from my voting area on election day and so didn't get to vote.

One female journalist said "This is a vote against women! A direct attack against women!". Women make up 55% of the population in the USA - they aren't a minority, and if they wanted to, they could unite and hand-pick any president they want in any election ever, regardless of policies (obviously in theory, not in practice).

This was a vote against one particular woman.

Had Bernie Bros not been burned by a clearly biased Democratic leadership, they would've supported the Democratic nominee, regardless of who got nominated, instead of refusing to vote at all. And the formerly Democrat voters who swung the election to Trump did so because they have been burned by the economy in-general (regardless of who's fault that is), and Donald Trump's economic message resonated with them, while all Hillary did was call him racist over and over and play condescending ads about anyone voting for Trump being bad parents (Bill Clinton directly advised Hillary's campaign to focus on the economy, but her advisers thought he was just a out of touch white male! :lol:). Sanders' economic message would've possibly resonated equally well with the dissatisfied voters, and several Republicans, myself included, heavily contemplated voting Sanders. Instead of Dems swinging Republican, you would have Reps swinging Democrat.

Had the Democratic primary not been rigged by the Democratic leadership, there's a decent chance you'd have President Sanders for the next 4-8 years.

In short: everyone's an expert and has an explanation on Trump's win.

The truth: no one is 100% sure what went down.