The General Election

[HuskerNation1]

Ok...I'll step away.

 

Here is what I would love for you to do.

 

Start a new thread titled "trump presidency".

 

In there you post links to articles you think we should read because they are all telling the truth with no bias.

 

Meanwhile, I'm going to read trumps tweets and listen to his own words.

 

So far, going do has lead me to believe he's an immature lying jackass.

 

Maybe this new thread can open my eyes so I don't have to actually pay attention to his own words.

 

I guess I was right that you are overly sensitive. If you are planning to spend the next four (or eight) years being angry at Trump, its going to drive you crazy. As you know, I could not stand Obama and believe that he has been the most partisan and polarizing President in my lifetime, but I had to accept that other than coming on here to complain from time to time, there really is nothing that can be done about it. There have been countless things that Obama has said and promised since his campaign in 2008 that are complete lies, and at the end of the day, he will be judged on his results and his record just as Trump will be.

[BigRedBuster]

But yet you are going to spend the next 4 years making sure everyone knows that any media that might just actually listen to trumps words or read his tweets is some left wing radical propaganda machine and shouldn't be listened too.

 

Everyone should make sure they only pay attention to media that kisses his ass.

[knapplc]

I once was sued by my neighbor when I lived in Des Moines. This neighbor was absolutely horrible to live around. They were so horrible, that a reporter for the Des Moines Register called me (and all the neighbors) to write an article about them. I was quoted several times in the article.

 

Well, the neighbor sued me and everyone else who was quoted. In the pre trial meeting to try to solve the issue, my lawyer was worthless and they sat there crying about how horrible it was that they were slandered so bad in the paper.

 

Finally, I had had it. I flat out told them that if they don't want people to talk about them, they need to stop doing stupid stuff that makes everyone else's life miserable around them. Their lawyer called for a recess and then came back in and said they were dropping the suit.

 

Moral to the story, if you don't want people to say stupid sh#t about you, don't do stupid sh#t. This is exactly what the Republican party has come to. They have been absolutely clueless on issues and when any news outlet reports on the stupid sh#t, they cry saying that's unfair. You know...everyone's unfair except Fox News and Breitbart. Nobody should listen to anyone but those people (Oh...and those random news articles people pass around talking about how Hillary is running a sex ring out of a pizza joint.)

 

Your post is exactly why we are at the cross roads with fake news. Everyone on the right is so convinced there is some huge conspiracy against them in the media, they are scared to death to actually pay attention to legitimate outlets. Instead, they pass around crap all over social media and actually believe it. This is such a pathetic situation that we now have one of the biggest problem children in this issue actually advising the President elect. The President elect is so friggen clueless that he himself has tweeted out fake news crap.

 

So...getting back to your post here.

So, now we are claiming any news network that got the predictions wrong or was shocked at Trump's victory are now horribly biased and can't be trusted? Sorry, I don't have a problem if someone on TV is shocked that an immature jackass wins the Presidency of the United states of America.

 

If you don't want people to say you do stupid stuff, don't do stupid stuff.

 

 

And...for his twitter account. The guy is a flaming idiot for what he does on that account. It proves he is a thin skinned egomaniac. Not quite what I want representing me on the international stage.

 

[BigRedBuster]

As you know, I could not stand Obama and believe that he has been the most partisan and polarizing President in my lifetime,

 

 

 

I finally figured it out. Republicans were upset that Obama was the best at something. So, they needed to elect someone who was better in this category than him.

[TGHusker]

Great response Knapp. Love the crowd!!! Let me add my own

 

Going back to BRB's post - the media wasn't the only one shocked - Trump himself thought he was going to lose.

 

http://www.newsmax.com/Politics/trump-polls-election-lose/2016/12/14/id/763840/

[BigRedBuster]

Very interesting.

 

 

[84HuskerLaw]

Very interesting.

 

 

Just have to ask you libs on here that are so outraged by the truth coming out despite the liberal media trying to hide, misrepresent and outright lie to the public.

How do you feel about your Democrat 'electors' wanting to NOT vote for your candidate and would like to vote for a Republican instead? Is this some kind of trojan horse like 'trick' in which some Dem electors want to get away with voting for some third party not even running over the candidate that won the state or the candidate who won the big majority of the other states?

This effort to undermine and go against the Constitution goes to the heart of the electoral college in the first place - to assure that all the states are justly and fairly represented in proportion to their population in the choice of the President and the Vice President. How do you rationalize this one?

[knapplc]

Just have to ask you libs on here that are so outraged by the truth coming out despite the liberal media trying to hide, misrepresent and outright lie to the public.

How do you feel about your Democrat 'electors' wanting to NOT vote for your candidate and would like to vote for a Republican instead? Is this some kind of trojan horse like 'trick' in which some Dem electors want to get away with voting for some third party not even running over the candidate that won the state or the candidate who won the big majority of the other states?

This effort to undermine and go against the Constitution goes to the heart of the electoral college in the first place - to assure that all the states are justly and fairly represented in proportion to their population in the choice of the President and the Vice President. How do you rationalize this one?

 

#1 - No Flaming/Trolling/Defamatory posts

Strong opinions are encouraged, and debated is not only welcomed – it's the main reason the board exists. If what you are considering posting doesn’t advance the issue being discussed – if it’s just taking a “shot” at someone – then either don’t post it, or phrase it in a way that meets the rules. There is absolutely no reason to verbally attack another user (aka flaming), and/or posting a message for the express purpose of generating a negative response (trolling). Any defamatory posts made against HuskerBoard, its representatives, or any other member may result in an immediate ban or temporary account disablement.Posts outside of the general theme of the topic which you are posting within will be moved or deleted.

[BigRedBuster]

 

Very interesting.

 

 

Just have to ask you libs on here that are so outraged by the truth coming out despite the liberal media trying to hide, misrepresent and outright lie to the public.

How do you feel about your Democrat 'electors' wanting to NOT vote for your candidate and would like to vote for a Republican instead? Is this some kind of trojan horse like 'trick' in which some Dem electors want to get away with voting for some third party not even running over the candidate that won the state or the candidate who won the big majority of the other states?

This effort to undermine and go against the Constitution goes to the heart of the electoral college in the first place - to assure that all the states are justly and fairly represented in proportion to their population in the choice of the President and the Vice President. How do you rationalize this one?

 

I'm not a liberal so your question isn't directed at me.

 

But, I have to ask...what "truth" are you talking about?

[zoogs]

Those electors are trying to gain solidarity with Republican electors by choosing a Republican who isn't Trump. They won't succeed, and the elector system to some extent still confuses me, but I suppose arguably in many states this is at their discretion.

 

Partially with the idea in mind that we might avoid disasters with this extra layer of removal from the raw popular vote. Kind of odd, and not very transparent.

 

There's zero way they won't choose Trump, IMO, unless we get about 40 Republican electors to go over to Clinton - and that would be both extraordinary and ugly. But I'd be quite encouraged by a show of protest, even if it just means Trump gets elected anyway.

[zoogs]

Compelling argument summing up a lot of my thoughts about post-election hot takes, some of which I've certainly indulged in myself.

 

Stop it! There are no big lessons from the 2016 election

 

These have one element in common: All these people thought all these things before the election. Now they're trying to use the election to prove that they were right all along, dammit. But they weren't. This election turned on a few tiny electoral shifts and some wildly improbable outside events. There simply aren't any truly big lessons to be drawn from it.

From Jacob Levy of the Niskanen Center:

 

The pundit’s fallacy when applied to losses takes the form of a morality play: because you fools did the thing I don’t like, the voters punished you.

I don't think this renders all of these topics not worth talking about. They were prevalent issues before the election went down the way it did and will continue to be. Similarly there are surely different lessons to learn from any event. But I'd caution against diving headfirst into big, specific, self-confirming narratives, because the impulse for that is very strong.

 

And the postscript:

 

POSTSCRIPT: This is all about national-level politics. I don't think there's any question that Democrats took a huge beating at the state and local level, where they were already weak. If you want to write a smart piece about what's wrong with Democrats, that's the place to start. Forget Hillary Clinton. Tell me instead why Democrats have such dismal prospects at the state level.

[Danny Bateman]

Compelling argument summing up a lot of my thoughts about post-election hot takes, some of which I've certainly indulged in myself.

 

Stop it! There are no big lessons from the 2016 election

 

These have one element in common: All these people thought all these things before the election. Now they're trying to use the election to prove that they were right all along, dammit. But they weren't. This election turned on a few tiny electoral shifts and some wildly improbable outside events. There simply aren't any truly big lessons to be drawn from it.

From Jacob Levy of the Niskanen Center:

 

The pundit’s fallacy when applied to losses takes the form of a morality play: because you fools did the thing I don’t like, the voters punished you.

I don't think this renders all of these topics not worth talking about. They were prevalent issues before the election went down the way it did and will continue to be. Similarly there are surely different lessons to learn from any event. But I'd caution against diving headfirst into big, specific, self-confirming narratives, because the impulse for that is very strong.

 

And the postscript:

 

POSTSCRIPT: This is all about national-level politics. I don't think there's any question that Democrats took a huge beating at the state and local level, where they were already weak. If you want to write a smart piece about what's wrong with Democrats, that's the place to start. Forget Hillary Clinton. Tell me instead why Democrats have such dismal prospects at the state level.

 

 

It's really not all that complicated... I agree. Once you step back from all the hyperbole and knee-jerking about the Democratic post-mortum and how the party is imploding, the solution is pretty dang simple.

 

1. Don't be in power. Being marginalized does great things for turnout. Everyone I knew was saying that it's tough to hold the White House for a third time-- politics here are just too cyclical.

 

2. Don't nominate Hillary Clinton. Dems should hope a 2020 nominee is revealed as late as possible. Everyone saw Clinton coming since 2008, and the GOP proganda machine ran her through for quite a few cycles in that time. There are very few things I respect about the GOP, but even I have to admit they do hatchet jobs well. Whomever they nominate next should be a fresh face without all that baggage, and they can keep the baggage to a minimum by keeping them out of that Republican attack machine for as long as possible.

 

3. Don't really change policies much. Most people are fine with Democratic policies. Maybe not having gun control front and center could help win some rural votes. I'd just focus on the economy and jobs and keep everything else static and they should be just fine.

 

As to the state-level problems, that's been a problem for them forever. GOP donors aren't opposed to dumping millions into state races if they think they can buy seats. I would try to combat this by continuing to push for action against voter suppression, fair redistricting in 2020 (which likely requires more governor seats) instead of gerrymandering, and a grassroots push to recruit more ordinary folks who can be good, honest candidates.

 

With Trump quickly molding the GOP into the party of crony capitalism, nepotism, and Russian fanboys, there's room for strong rebound.

[TGHusker]

Post Election: Blame the Russians, blame the FBI - but not the poor candidate. A decent candidate would have not had the email issue to begin with. As long as the dems keep looking to place blame somewhere else and

remain in 'denial' they won't recover from this election. I would have to think any other Dem could have, should have, and would have beat Trump. Yes, Hillary still won the popular vote but we live in a republic wt an electoral college and not a democracy with a pure popular vote.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-fbi-comey.html?_r=0

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-podesta-something-is-deeply-broken-at-the-fbi/2016/12/15/51668ab4-c303-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.c80f31eaf5cc

[Lil' Red]

Post Election: Blame the Russians, blame the FBI - but not the poor candidate. A decent candidate would have not had the email issue to begin with. As long as the dems keep looking to place blame somewhere else and

remain in 'denial' they won't recover from this election. I would have to think any other Dem could have, should have, and would have beat Trump. Yes, Hillary still won the popular vote but we live in a republic wt an electoral college and not a democracy with a pure popular vote.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-fbi-comey.html?_r=0

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-podesta-something-is-deeply-broken-at-the-fbi/2016/12/15/51668ab4-c303-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.c80f31eaf5cc

 

I think most people acknowledge that Hillary was a terrible candidate. However, that doesn't excuse the interference by Russia and the FBI. Imagine if the roles were reversed and Russia and the FBI helped Clinton win. Do you think that Trump and his supporters would accept that result since he was also a terrible candidate?

[BigRedBuster]

Post Election: Blame the Russians, blame the FBI - but not the poor candidate. A decent candidate would have not had the email issue to begin with. As long as the dems keep looking to place blame somewhere else and

remain in 'denial' they won't recover from this election. I would have to think any other Dem could have, should have, and would have beat Trump. Yes, Hillary still won the popular vote but we live in a republic wt an electoral college and not a democracy with a pure popular vote.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-russia-fbi-comey.html?_r=0

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/hillary-clinton-campaign-donors-post-mortem-232715

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/john-podesta-something-is-deeply-broken-at-the-fbi/2016/12/15/51668ab4-c303-11e6-9a51-cd56ea1c2bb7_story.html?utm_term=.c80f31eaf5cc

My prediction is one of two ways:

 

a) The Trump presidency is going to be so widely successful that the Dems are going to have absolutely no chance of winning 2020. He will do it be actually being decent with the economy while being pretty dang liberal on social issues. This would actually create a new found respect for the administration from me and would cement much of the support from the voters. This would ensure a victory for 4 more years. If that continues, the Dems would be forced to change policies on certain economic issues.

 

b) The administration is going to be a complete disaster. For which, the Dems would be able to run on basically the same exact platform and the Republicans would be the ones licking their wounds in 4 years.

What is going to be interesting is the midterms in 2 years. If the Republicans have any desire to keep control of congress, Trumps policies had better kick in quickly and be wildly successful. The Dems will NEVER throw either of the Clintons under the bus because they are the modern day Kennedy's that can do absolutely no wrong in their eyes.