Trump: Officially Next President!!!

[columbus]

Deflection? It's the truth. It is officially a done deal and most people are going to go about their business.

We have 4 years to talk about him...

And we're just getting started talking about him. But already the Trump supporters keep changing the subject from Trump to Clinton and Obama.
It's like they're embarrassed to be associated with their candidate, Putin's boy Trump.
Why is that?
Tom

 

[columbus]

How is it I'm not banned yet?

If I were on the staff you'd never get away. We'd hire wirey to stalk you until Trump went away.
Tom

 

[columbus]

No to what?
I generally don't read the posts I quote.
How is it I'm not banned yet?

It's a

"No, I will keep deflecting to the losers and refuse to discuss the President ".

Do you even read your own posts?
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

Do you even read your own posts?

I have better things to do.

I suppose I should do them.

 

[Neo Deist]

And we're just getting started talking about him. But already the Trump supporters keep changing the subject from Trump to Clinton and Obama.
It's like they're embarrassed to be associated with their candidate, Putin's boy Trump.
Why is that?
Tom

Go drink some eggnog or something. You're grasping at straws.

 

[columbus]

Go drink some eggnog or something. You're grasping at straws.

I'm talking about Trump.
Or, I would be. If his supporters weren't so anxious to change the subject to Hillary, or anything except Trump.
Tom

 

[dust1n]

I'm talking about Trump.
Or, I would be. If his supporters weren't so anxious to change the subject to Hillary, or anything except Trump.
Tom

Speaking of, Hillary for Prison 2016... or 2017... or maybe by 2019... one day...

 

[fantome profane]

Does it mean that the Dems will stop with the death threats against the electors?

The thing is that I have never personally made any death threats against any electors, and I unequivically condemn those who did so. Beyond even the fact that a death threat is always a serious crime, in this circumstance it is also an act of treason and terrorism and should be treated very seriously. Ask any other Hillary supporter on this board and I suspect they will also condemn death threats made against electors.

But when we talk about Trumps supporters deflecting crtiticism by bringing up Clinton we are talking about the actually posters on this board. We are not asking them to take resposnsibility for the actions of others. When I say you have been deflecting criticism of Trump, I mean you. Not repulicans in general, not Trump supporters in general, and not some other random person. I mean you, the Ignorant Atheist Capitalist Engineer Libertarian. You have deflected criticism of Trump by pivoting to Clinton.

The question is are you going to continue to do this?

 

[Revoltingest]

The question is are you going to continue to do this?

Yes.
But my intent is different from your inference.
You responded with reason & thoughtful analysis.
(Stop that!)
I only intended to be snotty about the double standard,
ie, so many characterize us by the worst things done in
Trump's name....a standard they don't apply to themselves.

 

[psychoslice]

Good on ya Trump, I hope he brings the US out of the swamp that they have been in for so long, yep, time to drain the swamp.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here's the thing about the presidency.....
It's not the size of the win.....it's the mere fact of the win which confers the power.

Which is clearly a problem when the majority of those who made the effort to go vote aren't getting the candidate we chose. It becomes a problem when four years when, supposedly, a PV win of 5 million votes and a EC of over 100 was "no mandate," but now, with a PV loss of nearly 3 million and a EC margin of about 60, and the Left is supposed to just shut up and accept it because Trump was the big winner? If there is ever a time to call "no mandate," it is indeed when the "winner" looses the vote of the People by a comfortable margin and has a slim margin from the EC.
Our "winner-take-all" approach is, itself, a problem.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes.
But my intent is different from your inference.
You responded with reason & thoughtful analysis.
(Stop that!)
I only intended to be snotty about the double standard,
ie, so many characterize us by the worst things done in
Trump's name....a standard they don't apply to themselves.

In other words, you responded to the accusation of deflecting, by deflecting the accusation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Go drink some eggnog or something. You're grasping at straws.

Then why prove him right by dodging comments about Trump?

 

[Mindmaster]

And they are not wanting to accept that Trump totally lost the popular vote and has one of the lowest EC margins in history. That's not the huge victory they like to pretend he had.

These just basically reduce to penis measuring arguments, and like any race a winner is a winner even if that win is by a narrow margin. Personally, I think the public at large was coin-flipping but the votes on Senate, House, and the future Supreme Court picks change the game. It's likely that Trump will seat at least two of those SCOTUS picks before his term is up. Anyway, it's far from surprising to me... People like Obama, but Dems have been losing tons of seats for awhile.

Have Democrats lost 900 seats in state legislatures since Obama has been president?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's likely that Trump will seat at least two of those SCOTUS picks before his term is up. Anyway, it's far from surprising to me... People like Obama, but they have been losing tons of seats for awhile.

One that is, by all rights and legalities, rightfully Obama's appointment, but the "butt-hurt" Republicans aren't having it.

 

[Mindmaster]

One that is, by all rights and legalities, rightfully Obama's appointment, but the "butt-hurt" Republicans aren't having it.

It's hard to get anything done as a lame duck President, and that really never changes. The majorities only have to play ball if you have something to offer, and the President elect that comes after you can undo everything you did. I find great contradiction in your logic here because historically the Democrats did the same thing and have held such majorities much longer than the Republicans.

 

[Revoltingest]

Which is clearly a problem when the majority of those who made the effort to go vote aren't getting the candidate we chose. It becomes a problem when four years when, supposedly, a PV win of 5 million votes and a EC of over 100 was "no mandate," but now, with a PV loss of nearly 3 million and a EC margin of about 60, and the Left is supposed to just shut up and accept it because Trump was the big winner? If there is ever a time to call "no mandate," it is indeed when the "winner" looses the vote of the People by a comfortable margin and has a slim margin from the EC.
Our "winner-take-all" approach is, itself, a problem.

Technically speaking, she didn't win the majority of votes.
But Trump did win a majority of electoral college votes.
Mandate or not...he'll do what he'll do.

 

[Revoltingest]

In other words, you responded to the accusation of deflecting, by deflecting the accusation.

Actually, I responded to what a particular poster said.
So it shouldn't be overly broadly interpereted.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I find great contradiction in your logic

There is nothing contradicting about it. Obama is the president, the president is charged with appointing Supreme Court Justices. There is nothing about "lame ducks" and time remaining in office.

 

[columbus]

The thing is that I have never personally made any death threats against any electors, and I unequivically condemn those who did so.

More to the point, I don't know anybody who brings up death threats against Hillary when the subject is whatever she might have done.
You know there were hundreds of thousands of them.
But they weren't relevant.
Trump supporters don't want to talk about what is relevant, and it's pretty danged obvious to me why that is a fact.
Tom