Elerond
-
Posts
2620 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Everything posted by Elerond
-
Fox news still hasn't fully accepted Trump. That should tell all. Don't get all OCD on me. I'm not going to pick straws. Of course media outlets are going to be negative, that's their m.o, it's not the same as openly supporting a candidate as is most often done. You're either lying to yourself or out of touch if you don't see the difference. I would in counter claim that you are lying to yourself if you really believe that Trump don't have support of media outlets behind him. Media outlets know how to read their audience and they know that it is divided. Like where you see that Fox don't full heartily support Trump, you can also see media outlets that attacked him during elections now writing articles about people coming together in name of the country etc. pieces meant to make people that are against Trump, less against him and court those who supported Trump continue to read/watch/listen them. Media is excellent in the ways how they manipulate people and their goal is alway foremost their own profits.
-
Is there anywhere where you can get pure numbers on each state without having to select it individually in a nice graph? https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VAcF0eJ06y_8T4o2gvIL4YcyQy8pxb1zYkgXF76Uu1s/htmlview Although whoever made the sheet has not updated it with final numbers
-
Hillary was an outrageously bad candidate but still nearly won. The large majority of the country still votes the party line no matter how awful their candidate. In general, the independents bounce back and forth every 8 years after they finally get tired of the failed promises of the current administration or are simply bored with it and want a different flavored bubblegum. But, I will say that Trump's victory, without any media support whatsoever, is pretty substantial. Will it revolutionize anything? Probably not, but it's still unique, to say the least. Trump had media's support. There wasn't day during his campaign that media didn't speak about him. Media talked about him so much that his nearly non-existing plans to realize his promises were washed away by nonsensical sensationalist headlines. His lack of candidates in government jobs was realized after he won his campaign. And press successfully made people forgot what kind policies people in Trumps inner circle have, people who will most likely play part in new government. So some of the media smeared him and some plainly supported him but nobody seem to actually really questioning his ability to lead the country, which made him equal to Clinton when it come in choice as leader and then people had to only decide which one they hate more. In comparison to someone like Gary Johnson, Trump had media support, but I didn't expect to have to explain. Both the left wing and right wing media outlets were out against Trump from the start, and as others have pointed out, they're still slow to get why Trump was elected, doubling down on pro right or left talking points. No such thing as bad news fits here. It's like the more the elites tried to slam Trump, the more the independents supported him. So yeah, he won without major media backing of any sort, which was my point. But he had major media outlets that backed him, they didn't necessary promote him, but they did their best to villainize Clinton. Media outlets published articles after articles, how Clinton is traitor, criminal, distrustful, corrupt, old, sick, weak, woman, bad speaker, robot, lizard person, and so on. So major media didn't necessary promote Trump, but they did excellent job to make Trump look like lesser evil next to Clinton. Which is clear media backing even though it gives media houses excuse that they didn't directly supported Trump. When you add to this the fact that these same media outlets constantly release articles about Trump and his candidacy, and doing so making sure that people are aware that Trump exist and is the option for the Clinton. Of course there was also media organizations that demonized Trump and advocated Clinton as the lesser evil option, which is big part why there is now people protesting in the streets against Trump. Although Clinton did gather more media outlets that were willing to say that they support her presidency than Trump.
-
Clinton seem to have made history, by becoming as candidate that won with highest margin the popular vote and still lost the election. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/clintons-substantial-popular-vote-win.html?_r=1 By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points, according to my Times colleague Nate Cohn. She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000 but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F. Kennedy in 1960.
-
Hillary was an outrageously bad candidate but still nearly won. The large majority of the country still votes the party line no matter how awful their candidate. In general, the independents bounce back and forth every 8 years after they finally get tired of the failed promises of the current administration or are simply bored with it and want a different flavored bubblegum. But, I will say that Trump's victory, without any media support whatsoever, is pretty substantial. Will it revolutionize anything? Probably not, but it's still unique, to say the least. Trump had media's support. There wasn't day during his campaign that media didn't speak about him. Media talked about him so much that his nearly non-existing plans to realize his promises were washed away by nonsensical sensationalist headlines. His lack of candidates in government jobs was realized after he won his campaign. And press successfully made people forgot what kind policies people in Trumps inner circle have, people who will most likely play part in new government. So some of the media smeared him and some plainly supported him but nobody seem to actually really questioning his ability to lead the country, which made him equal to Clinton when it come in choice as leader and then people had to only decide which one they hate more.
-
As others pointed out, right to protest is not a right to riot. Rioting, vandalism, etc. are crimes and those who participate in those crimes should be punished according to law. But denying people right to protest because some protesters break the law is just same rhetoric where people demand that all guns should be banned because some gun owners us their guns to murder other people.
-
Right to protest is vital part of democratic system, because it gives people that aren't satisfied with results by system ability to express their dissatisfaction and disagreement with direction that system is steering the country. It is one of the reasons why freedom of the speech is one of the most important rights that people have in democracy. So my question is why do you all hate democracy so much?
-
They are only thing that can give any information how different demographics voted, as votes themselves can't be traced back to people who casted them.
-
Those "millenials" (people born 1980s to 2000) that cared to vote majority 55% voted Clinton according to exit polls. But yet again most of them didn't vote. Although millenial white people voted for trump 48% versus 43% to Clinton. But youth turn out for GOP nominee was fourth-lowest since 1972. 8% of millenials that vote voted third party candidate, up form 3% in 2012. 19% of all voters were millenials. Compared to Obama, Clinton lost millenial votes, but Trump didn't gain any compared to Romney, meaning that millenials that Clinton lost voted third party candidate instead of Trump. Had only millennials voted, Clinton would've won the election in a landslide, with 473 electoral votes to Trump's 32.
-
It seems that only demographic segment where Trump lost voters compared to Romney was white women, which may come to bite republicans in future considering that white women is single largest demographic group in US. Even though Clinton and Democrats have clearly lost more support among people, they aren't currently in power and those that are in power are the ones that need to make people happy, their opposition needs only to undermine people in power and offer alternative in election.
-
Rigged system they say States that passed voting restrictions saw decreased turnout, flipped to Trump http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/states-new-voting-restrictions-flip-trump-article-1.2866395?utm_content=buffereb48e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=NYDailyNewsTw
-
The interesting thing with Fascism, is it is basically socialism without the obsession with equality. You're kidding, right? I dunno, Hitler's NSDAP party directly translated was the National Socialist German Labour Party. It pretty much says it on the tin. The Italian term fascismo is derived from fascio meaning a bundle of rods, ultimately from the Latin word fasces. The symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break. This was the name given to political organizations in Italy known as fasci, groups similar to guilds or syndicates and at first applied mainly to organisations on the political Left. In 1919, Benito Mussolini founded the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento in Milan, which became the Partito Nazionale Fascista (National Fascist Party) two years later. NSDAP are linked to Italian fascism because they had lot of similar politics and ideologies. There is agreed on definition what fascism means and what makes people fascists. But it is generally accepted that Nazis and those above mention Italian political organizations were fascists.
-
Guardian decided to play the role that Fox has done past 8 years, as Fox can't be trusted anymore to do their job as party that they support is in the control.
-
https://twitter.com/i/moments/796396412325871616 Theory why Clinton didn't win. It also make me think that she is speaking about this forum
-
Wyoming, which has population bit less than 600k has three electoral votes, so about 1 vote per 200k people California, which has population of about 39 145 000 has 55 electoral votes, which is about 1 vote per 700k people.
-
Source? Anyhow, another interpretation: http://brilliantmaps.com/if-only-x-voted/ Above maps are based on poll results before election not actual results.
-
It seems that 47% of eligible voters didn't bother to vote. So at least there is lot of people that people can blame for next 4 years. No need for self-reflection It also seems that only ethnicity group that matters in US is whites.
-
-
Until the actual election results I would have agreed with your friend because my experience is many people, including some forum members, did seem almost obsessed with the email scandal But I would ask your friend when was Trump homophobic, because I can recall when he demonstrated other forms of bigotry but not homophobia ? When he chose Pence, who is openly and actively against LGBT rights and protections and who thinks that conversion therapy is not just okay but better target for governmental funding than AIDS prevention, you know that he isn't big supporter of LGBT people.
-
Do they also include VP that in interviews tells that if they win election they will as soon as they get in office start to remove LGBT protections, rights, including same sex couples to marry?
-
You forgot that people that didn't vote, also vote for Trump. Except if you live in area where Clinton won, then you voted for Clinton if you didn't vote for Trump. That was the first group listed m8. Anyways it looks like Clinton may have won the popular vote. This just gets better and better. Sorry I am just blind. It is nice to see that yet again candidate for establishment and democratic party that rigged the election loses election by winning popular vote because of rules by establishment.
-
I am pirate all way to the end.
-
You forgot that people that didn't vote, also vote for Trump. Except if you live in area where Clinton won, then you voted for Clinton if you didn't vote for Trump.
-
It seem that best case scenario has happened. Trade agreements and cheap foreign labor supporters now control house, senate and president's office.
-
Now we're back fun-time pondering! What's in for Trump to run and deliberately lose? What will he gain? Lets go in conspiracy rabbit hole and presume that conspiracy theorists are right Then there would be several things that Trump would gain by losing purposefully First he would have corrupt president that is willing to use her office to help her friend in office Clinton already has big part of governmental official in her pocket. Trump is facing criminal charges and tax fraud charges etc. and he wants them to go away Trump will get direct line to White House and influence its decision without needing to sacrifice his businesses like he would need in case that he becomes president. Presidential campaign has again made Trump relevant which is probably good for his reality tv shows. and so on.
