Expat Forum For People Moving Overseas And Living Abroad banner
1 - 20 of 75 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
Wrong. Obama go elected twice in spite of all the propaganda. Trump got elected because of all the propaganda working so well now. :doh:
I don't see how you can say this as the entire mainstream media was against him as was all of Hollywood. Only Fox news supported him so the real propaganda was negative. There sure was a lot more negative coverage, and still is, than positive so you can't very well say that propaganda worked for him. The press pounced on everything he said and practically ignored the fact that Hillary was under a criminal investigation. Bill just happened to run into Loretta Lynch on a runway? Do you actually buy this?


Trump won because the democrats put forth the most detestable candidate in history. They should have just trotted out Al Gore, at least he doesn't have all of the dirty laundry that Hillary does.

Again, I didn't vote for Trump, as much as I detested Hillary I could not bring myself to vote for him but I am really happy that Hillary is not my president.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
Pardon the facts, but:
Trump was elected because of the way the Electoral College works. Hillary had a greater number of votes.
The reason Trump had as many supporters as he did is because he promised the moon to a large number of people who have felt let down by the "system".
He also appealed to all the alt-right types, the racists, the misogynists, the liberal-haters and of course, let us not forget: the one issue religious righties who bought into Trump's flip flop position on abortion.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
Pardon the facts, but:
Trump was elected because of the way the Electoral College works. Hillary had a greater number of votes.
The reason Trump had as many supporters as he did is because he promised the moon to a large number of people who have felt let down by the "system".
He also appealed to all the alt-right types, the racists, the misogynists, the liberal-haters and of course, let us not forget: the one issue religious righties who bought into Trump's flip flop position on abortion.
You are entitled to believe whatever you want, as I am but I will stick to my assessment, electoral college understood , without calling you names as you do conservatives. The electoral college represents a broader spectrum of Americans than the opinions of California and New York. Obviously the broader spectrum of Americans did not want Hillary and voted more against her than for Trump.


To label all conservatives racists, misogynists, liberal haters and the religious righties is narrow minded and straight out of the liberal playbook, these are not "facts" as you present them but opinions. That was exactly what Hillary did when she called Trump supporters "deplorable". I was called a racist in the last discussion I took place in here because I don't like Obama, someone saying that if Obama had blond hair and blue eyes I might like him. That explains my utter disgust for Hillary, right?


Trump won because Hillary was as crooked as the day is long and people simply did not want her, not because of anything he said. He certainly isn't a good public speaker, if you stack him up against Cruz he sounds like Forrest Gump.

The people were tired of politics as usual and another Clinton was the last thing we needed. But don't worry, they will trot out Chelsea next.


Trump is a buffoon for sure but that just shines the spotlight on how bad of a candidate that the liberals got behind and chose as their candidate. There is no shame in admitting that she was a terrible choice, I really don't see why people struggle to admit that. The bottom line remains that Trump won simply because Hillary was such a poor choice, not because Trump was great. It was simply the lesser of two evils.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
"You are entitled to believe whatever you want, as I am but I will stick to my assessment, electoral college understood , without calling you names as you do conservatives. The electoral college represents a broader spectrum of Americans than the opinions of California and New York. Obviously the broader spectrum of Americans did not want Hillary and voted more against her than for Trump. "

Which name did I call conservatives that you find objectionable?

That "broader spectrum" of Americans? What does that mean in plain English? You mean the movers and shakers or the East and West coasts who create much of the country's wealth are somehow lesser value Americans than who?

Those who like the way the election came out are happy as can be about the way it happened: but around three million people felt disenfranchised. Numbers don't lie. That is the only "fact" I'm referring to.

I'm no Hillary fan, but I'm quite sure that the U.S. would not have been ridiculed on the international stage if she had been its representative in the latest gatherings.

The twitter-fest that goes on is another national embarrassment. Beyond words.

It you're happy with the present situation, please name something you see as good that has come out of the last six months of Trump's presidency?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
"You are entitled to believe whatever you want, as I am but I will stick to my assessment, electoral college understood , without calling you names as you do conservatives. The electoral college represents a broader spectrum of Americans than the opinions of California and New York. Obviously the broader spectrum of Americans did not want Hillary and voted more against her than for Trump. "

Which name did I call conservatives that you find objectionable?

That "broader spectrum" of Americans? What does that mean in plain English? You mean the movers and shakers or the East and West coasts who create much of the country's wealth are somehow lesser value Americans than who?

Those who like the way the election came out are happy as can be about the way it happened: but around three million people felt disenfranchised. Numbers don't lie. That is the only "fact" I'm referring to.

I'm no Hillary fan, but I'm quite sure that the U.S. would not have been ridiculed on the international stage if she had been its representative in the latest gatherings.

The twitter-fest that goes on is another national embarrassment. Beyond words.

It you're happy with the present situation, please name something you see as good that has come out of the last six months of Trump's presidency?
I find the calling of any names objectionable, it is insulting in general to assume that anyone who doesn't agree with you is any of the names that you used, particularly automatically a racist, let alone any other label that you use on everyone not on your side. If you can't have a discussion without calling names it speaks volumes about you as a person.

The broader spectrum, remember that red and blue map that was almost entirely red?

Numbers do lie when it comes to voter fraud and non citizens voting, here we go again.

No, they didn't ridicule Hillary on the national stage, she was selling us out, the middle eastern countries loved her. She sings along with climate change and for some reason the middle eastern countries were donating millions to the Clinton Foundation which suddenly and mysteriously stopped once she was no longer in a position to help them. If that does not make it obvious that she was selling favors what would?

Might I remind you that Hillary also flip flopped on gay marriage, the Iraq War, The Trans Pacific Partnership, NAFTA, the Keystone Pipeline, and illegal immigrant children.

In 2014, Clinton discussed the influx of children from Central America illegally crossing into the U.S. with Christiane Amanpour of CNN. She said: “We have to send a clear message that just because your child gets across the border, that doesn’t mean your child gets to stay.” But in an MSNBC/Telemondo Town Hall in February, Jose Diaz-Balart asked if those children should be treated like a message. “Well,” Clinton said, “the children themselves need to be taken care of. They are children. They should be given every help that we can.”



You asked if I'm happy about the current situation to name one thing in the past 6 months of Trump's presidency that is good. That would be that Hillary is not my president.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,081 Posts
"The broader spectrum, remember that red and blue map that was almost entirely red? "

You mean the less populous states with a more conservative base? Still doesn't address the issue. That's an issue that, like slavery and female suffrage, wasn't dealt with by the Founders, and nothing will change the FACT that more human beings voted for the Democrat and the country has the less popular candidate as POTUS.

All the accusations you just made about Hillary may or may not be entirely true, but what's coming out about Trump, his connections and his family, equal or "trump" her wrong doings. Perhaps we could agree that it would be a refreshing change to have a qualified candidate with no record of unethical behavior of any kind, but maybe that type of person isn't interested in the downside of running for or being in that office.

I have never called you a racist: I said that racists were among Trump supporters. If you don't believe that, check out some of the alt-right statements. Blatantly racist. If you're not part of that contingent, good to hear.

Saying that not having Hillary as president is the "something good" resulting from the last six months is a non-answer. Surely you can come up with something positive that's resulted from having this man as POTUS.
 

·
Super Moderator
Guadalajara, México
Joined
·
7,096 Posts
The whole red/blue states idea is pretty misleading. The real split in the country is urban versus rural. Urban areas tend to be blue, rural areas red. This shows up well in the county map. However, what the county map obscures is that the urban areas have far more people than the rural areas, so the fact that most of the country looks red on the county map does not reflect the numbers of people that voted red versus blue.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,118 Posts
The whole red/blue states idea is pretty misleading. The real split in the country is urban versus rural. Urban areas tend to be blue, rural areas red. This shows up well in the county map. However, what the county map obscures is that the urban areas have far more people than the rural areas, so the fact that most of the country looks red on the county map does not reflect the numbers of people that voted red versus blue.
Thanks for your clear-headed analysis of the issue, Will!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

Your´s is the county map. Here is the state map. It looks quite a bit different from your´s and a much clearer división and what the comment she posted was about and that you responded to - states not counties.
I know mine was a county map but in my opinion it is a better representation of the will of the people because even in those blue states like Nevada, Oregon, Colorado and a lot of the east coast there was an awful lot of red. The counties break it down even more as sates are composed of counties. Granted, along the southern border of Texas there is a huge Latino population so they voted democrat.

I made a statement that the reason why Trump won was because the democratic party could not produce a candidate that could beat him. In other words, it wasn't that Trump was so good, it was that Hillary was so bad.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,411 Posts
The whole red/blue states idea is pretty misleading. The real split in the country is urban versus rural. Urban areas tend to be blue, rural areas red. This shows up well in the county map. However, what the county map obscures is that the urban areas have far more people than the rural areas, so the fact that most of the country looks red on the county map does not reflect the numbers of people that voted red versus blue.
I was speaking of the broader spectrum of the country and was questioned what I meant by that. Also the popular vote was being beat into the ground again like the dead horse that it is with Hillary getting 3 million more votes. That does not make her the more popular candidate, just more popular of those who voted. Voter turnout was at a 20 year low.

In this election 40% of eligible voters like myself chose not to vote. I found both candidates to be so repulsive I chose to deny either of them my vote, thereby voting against both of them. I'm pretty sure that a large number of the 40% that did not vote felt the same way.

Of the 139 million who voted, 2.4 million left the presidential line blank so that pretty much negates the popular vote lead, as if that mattered.

Personally I can't believe that Trump beat out his contenders. Marco Rubio, the son of Cuban immigrants, intelligent, articulate and charismatic. He would have gotten a lot of the immigrants votes but was perceived soft on illegal immigration.

Ben Carson, a brilliant black neurosurgeon raised by a single mother to achieve greatness, a shining example to inner city youths being raised in broken, fatherless families..

Ted Cruz, another intelligent, well spoken man even if he does look like Gandpa Munster.

All of those red counties chose Trump, the broader spectrum as I said.
 
1 - 20 of 75 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top