American Election Discussion

Moojor

Did anyone see the last leg yesterday? There was a comment about fact checking that was done on Clinton and Trump on the campaign trail.

Clinton lied with 14% of her statements
Trump lied with 66% of his statements

These are on factual information they claimed while campaigning, not on what they would do if voted in to power.

MrsGrey

I saw that.

OutcastLondoner

Here's a good podcast about whether this was the nastiest election in US history. https://itunes.apple.com/gb/podcast/the-inquiry/id932499233?mt=2&i=377636683

NEoldiron

;lol
http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/live-experience/cps/480/cpsprodpb/vivo/live/images/2016/11/10/936940b7-5ab2-42be-a74a-d6eba956be80.jpg

chicagohammer

I do not think I can count the number of times when Donald said "I did not say that" or "that is not what I said" when there is a very clear public recording of him saying exactly what he subsequently denied.

It truly was astonishing.

Kuchinghammer

Michael Moore predicted this result over a year ago. He gets a lot of stick (some well deserved) but the US establishment should have woken up and taken note.

Adam

Chicago

Yes, and people (trump supporters) seem too lazy to check that or they prefer to just bury their heads in the sand.

simonc

And Hillary supporters seem to overlook she can been bought by anyone with a fat wallet - Business or Country
Neither of these candidates were saints so you had to decide on policy not personality, it certainly does not mean anyone buried their heads just they did not want Hillary more

TheMadcapLaughs

Adam said:

Chicago

Yes, and people (trump supporters) seem too lazy to check that or they prefer to just bury their heads in the sand.

Or so used to politicians lying and evading the actual questions posed that people have become blase about it.

grey_til_I_dye said:

Madcap

And finally, finally, Mr G. Are Trump and Blair REALLY that different?

Yes. That's why I said it. ;hmm

I guess that`s cleared that up then

And can I just say, as much as I am in favour of popular revolt, it really riles me that people have taken to the streets just because they are a little miffed with the election result. The perceived "wrong result" is a very weak excuse to "riot". Burning effigies of Trump and screaming the words "not my president". Well I`m sorry, but he is, you are in a democracy and agree to live under the rule of law. Works all ways or not at all. I never really understood the contempt shown by the extreme right for "lily livered" or "wooly headed" liberals, in fact I would have considered myself one at one time. I am sorry, and absolutely no offence to anyone on here, but I think they may have a point.

"After losses overnight as Mr Trump`s surprise victory became clear, financial markets rebounded as a feared meltdown failed to materialise"

That was actually written by a BBC journalist. That has either got to be the most ironic, tongue in cheek piece of journalism ever committed to print, and alone is worthy of the pulitzer prize. Or if it was written in all seriousness, I want a bit of my licence fee back.

thornburyiron

The US has the oldest democracy of a Republic than any other country in the world so for some to believe the result was in democratic is bizarre.
Similarly for a so called mysoginist he had a very large female vote. 45% in one demographic and in excess of 50% in another. Also a large Latino and ethnic vote.
The democrats had the wrong candidate. She is a power hungry crook and what's more, women didn't feel she represented them as she let Bill get away with everything he did.

claretandbluesky

A truly frightening collection of incidents and elections which point to us becoming like nations we would previously have looked down upon as less civilised.

1. In the UK the independence of the judiciary criticised by the Govt and potentially marched against by a section of the public when deliberating in December. Whilst previously the foreign minister made a public call for a nations embassy to be protested at.

2. In the US a wealthy businessman with no previous experience gets elected president.

3. In response the losers burn effigies of said person.

Seen these things before and it is never from nations looking upwards.

Things not looking good.

thornburyiron

One other point is that he's never said he'd pull out of NATO but feels the $500+ billion they spend, more than double that of the EU which NATO exists to defend, is too much. We contribute a large amount but most EU countries don't.

simonc

Kuchinghammer said:

Michael Moore predicted this result over a year ago.

As they say even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Though i think this is a first for Michael Moore

claretandbluesky

The problem about Nato is Putin is sure to test it at some point and previously he never quite knew how the US would re-act, now he only needs watch re runs of the apprentice to get a read on the new president. If it's a chess game Putin will have him for dinner, I think draughts more Trumps game.

NEoldiron

claretandblue, I think Trump's game must surely be snakes and ladders. Definitely the most appropriate.

TheMadcapLaughs

So the American presidency was contested by a bully and a power hungry crook. Farage is angling for a job with Trump. Putin is puffing out his chest and Juncker is now pushing harder for an EU army. Oh and Teresa May (if I`ve understood it correctly) has said that India`s rich and powerful can join something called The Great Club, I`m not sure what it is, but it sounds fab and I`m a little envious. Oh, and Nicola Sturgeon, the leader of The Scottish Nationalist Party, seems to hate Nationalists and is very Internationalist in her outlook. Politics has all of a sudden become very confusing, where is Ted Heath and Harold Wilson (for those of you too young to remember these were fictional characters created by a chap called Mike Yarwood) things were so much simpler then. And people only had to work three days a week. Life is far too complicated now. Worrying times indeed C&B. Like Tom, time to withdraw from the machinations of political intrigue and concentrate on real life. Ten more years, and then Eastbourne here I come. ;icecream

OutcastLondoner

Vote is over, Trump isn't changing stance on registering Muslims. http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/11/20/donald-trump-says-hed-absolutely-require-muslims-to-register/

MrsGrey

thornbury - there are (as I'm sure you know) different forms of democracy.

USA has an electoral college system.

We don't.

There's also a PR system which neither of us have.

If the US election had been of a referendum type (every vote counts), Clinton would have won.

The debates about which form of 'democracy' is more representative predate this election and will no doubt continue around the world for many years to come.

I personally wouldn't say it was 'undemocratic,' but for me the jury is out on which form of voting offers voters the fairest system.

MrsGrey

thornburyiron said:

The democrats had the wrong candidate. She is a power hungry crook and what's more, women didn't feel she represented them as she let Bill get away with everything he did.

I don't agree with that conclusion, since some 94% of black women supported her, and 68% of Latino women.

I think the choices of the women voters are a lot more nuanced than that.

thornburyiron

Mrs G you may have missed my point. I know there are various forms of voting procedures. The US is the oldest, (maybe the only) democratic republic. Whatever the form they use they've used it to elect presidents for donkeys years so to say, just because it was Trump who triumphed, that the result was undemocratic is to my mind plain daft. You can't use a system and say it's the wrong one if you lose but the right one if you win.
As for your women voter numbers you may well be correct in your two examples but overall more women voted for Trump than Clinton if the figures given out by the US media are to be believed. There has to be a reason for that and I think it's probably because Clinton hasn't got a very good track record of standing up for women as her primary aim throughout her political career has been self obsessed with a determination to be president for its own sake.
Trump by contrast, whatever everyone thinks of him and some of the ridiculous drivel he can come out with, spoke the language of the disenfranchised.
The democrats did what Labour and the Lib Dems did at the general election and Remain at the referendum and that was to bring out all the luvvies who don't live in the real world to tell them how to vote. This may work with the celebrity obsessed populate but in the main doesn't. I have voted many ways during my lifetime but hearing some actor or whatever who spends his life speaking other peoples words talk as if they have some special intellectual insight that I don't makes me inclined to do the opposite.

claretandbluesky

I think Trump will find it hard as he has made the headline statements " we are going to build a wall and the Mexicans are gong to pay' and 'I will ban Muslims entering the US until we can find out what's going on' and it gets him elected by those who love that sort of stuff, but he will have to deliver for them. It is Boris's bus but Where as Boris has a bus, Trump has a whole coach company, coaches that have a value in securing votes but cant be paid for in reality. Just as Boris bus looked good and gave people something to talk about but in reality was never ever going to happen, the idea of a 2000 mile wall is never going to happen.

ASLEFshrugged

Vorselaarhammer said:

Clinton won the popular vote.

The Propositional Representation discussion raises it's head as in the UK elections.

How exactly would you apply proportional representation when electing a President? Does it involve a chainsaw?

MrsGrey

thorn, according to Trump, it would have been the wrong one if he lost (rigged election etc) but he seems to think its the right one now he's won ;wink

re women voters, the split was very varied across different demographics as you say (black, Latino, white, urban, rural etc), but (on figures so far) taken JUST on gender overall

54% of women overall voted for Clinton. That's a figure I have seen reported qutie widely in different media (US and UK). Would be interested to see what your sources arehat give a different split ;ok


That is about the same as voted for Obama. Not sure what conclusions can be drawn from that (except that Trump didn't win the female popular vote) and roughly the same number of women overall voted Democrat this time as last.

MrsGrey

thornburyiron said:

There has to be a reason for that [that women didn't vote for Clinton in greater numbers] and I think it's probably because Clinton hasn't got a very good track record of standing up for women .

So not her economic policy, then? Or her plan for taxation? Or gun control?

That assumption doesn't seem to have too much evidence behind it. And seems to be rather stereotyping women in terms of what their priorities are, or how much attention they pay to the actual policies. ;hmm

It might similarly be said that men voted for Trump because they like his attitude of putting uppity women in their place and showing them who's boss.

simonc

May be stereotyping but if the shoe fits.. the Democrats already saw it work for the Obama black vote 96% then 93% so surprise surprise who is already being touted as a great candidate for 2020? Oh why not a black woman - Michele Obama - I wonder what her policies are ;hmm

Moojor

thornburyiron said:

Trump by contrast, whatever everyone thinks of him and some of the ridiculous drivel he can come out with, spoke the language of the disenfranchised.
The democrats did what Labour and the Lib Dems did at the general election and Remain at the referendum and that was to bring out all the luvvies who don't live in the real world to tell them how to vote.
This may work with the celebrity obsessed populate but in the main doesn't. I have voted many ways during my lifetime but hearing some actor or whatever who spends his life speaking other peoples words talk as if they have some special intellectual insight that I don't makes me inclined to do the opposite.

So the language of the disenfranchised is lies. Over half of the things he said when campaigning where lies.

Excellent, so the way to get the "people" on your side, is to just say whatever you think they want to hear regardless of whether it is the truth or not.
That not treating them like a bunch of mindless idiots who don't have the intelligence to actually think for themselves and actually think about what you are saying.

How sad is it when people can't accept the truth because it's coming from someone who is regarded as the elite because of their education and upbringing.

thornburyiron

Mooj I think you're over reacting again. I was referring to his rhetoric that he wanted to make America great again, to get people into work etc. Was all that lies do you think?
I wasn't referring to the drivel.

thornburyiron

Mooj I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the opinions of say Bob Geldof, Madonna, Beyoncé etc are more valid than mine or yours or anyone else on here or that they were telling the truth. What makes you think their education was better than mine. ;hmm

PrestonHammer

He offered the public something different, Clinton didn't, it was just the same old, same old. Sanders on the other hand did offer something different but the DNC seemed to be more interested in being the first party to have a woman as it's leader and then President.

imagelost

Indeed Preston,,, I thought the Clint's and trumps ,,, not really a choice,,, but listening to some comments by a merry cans, I see why .trumps in.