If Trump wins. Or loses

Discussion in 'World Events' started by rcscwc, Aug 25, 2016.

  1. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    Third outcome is not possible. Or is it possible, like Obama cancelling elections. After all, during WW, no elections were held.

    If he wins it will be because he represents the latent racism of Americans. He represents the national facet which people are reluctant tom acknowledge at all. Come on, there are quite a few on this forum are white, xian supremacists. Even a lone Injun is behaving like them, rather more vehemently..


    I read somewhere, in a novel perhaps: Virtually any reasonably qualified Democrat would get 45% of the vote, as would any reasonably qualified Republican, leaving just 10% for the two sides to fight over.” In other words, the tussle between the two parties will be over how to eke a majority out of that 10%.

    It is clear that Hillary is gasping for every single float voter. Hence holding aloft an Asian. brown and MUSLIM( who spawn terrorists) from Pakistan's bad lands, Khizr Khan was shown on a pedestal. There is already a whisper that Trump's win would be Asia's loss. Why? Can Obama cancel elections at any stage?

    If he wins? Skies definitely not fall. Not at all, pals. Trump will have to change. Obama too changed.

    If he loses? Well, allegations of rigged elections are not new. They will be credible unless Hillary wins by a mega landslide. And this seems to be a wishful thinking.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Seattle Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,505
    I would respond more fully to this thread if any questions were asked other than "can Obama cancel the elections?".

    No, Obama can't cancel the election.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,427
    Elections have never been "canceled", in the US. Elections were held normally, on the regular schedule, during WWI and WWII. Obama has no say in the matter - he'd be removed from office if he tried to "cancel" a Presidential election somehow (how would he do that? The States run them).
    That didn't make any difference when W won.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    Hanging Chad.

    (joke)(Who is Chad, and what the hell did he do wrong?)
    Poor Al seemed to have gone just a we bit crazy after that.
    (how would you feel if you had "won" but lost anyway?)
    (Dylan Thomas)
     
  8. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,227
    Would you care to qualify this?

    Not sure if you're being facetious, or sarcastic or serious.
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Huh? FDR was elected in 1940 and 1944.

    The nonsense factor of your post did not improve after that line.
     
    joepistole likes this.
  10. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    The idea of Obama cancelling elections cuts to the heart of the cheat to win Democrat philosophy. They cannot win a fair fight using logic and hard data. The e-mails hacked from the DNC shows how deep this cheating goes. This cheat to win tactic includes mischaracterizing the opponents, as to induce paranoia in the mindless mob.

    Trump has had a good life. He has a nice family and has achieved a high level of success in all measures of the American dream. He is getting older and wants to give back to the country and make this possible for the next generation. Under Obama and the Democrats, this is the first young generation in Americans, who does not see their future brighter than that of their parents. Trump is about restoring the formula that made that possible; Make America great again, so the future is bright not gloomy.

    What has sabotaged that future for the children, besides huge national debt due to incompetence and corruption There is also the huge student loan debt also created by the Democrats. The assumption Obama can rigged the election system to make it work out for the Democrats, even if not good for the entire country, shows the philosophical source of the problem. The Democrats wish to reward illegal aliens; reward crime. Hillary is also showing how self serving politicians will sell out their country for personal enrichment. She is trying to become a billionaire like Trump, by cheating the system for some, and not by building value for all.

    Do you remember how evil Bernie Sanders was portrayed in the primaries, according to Hillary, and how he became different once he sold out. It is all about cheat to win and pay to play, which is hurting the future of America. Even foreign countries and nationals are trying to help us; hacking to show the cheating system since even the justice or injustice department has been made corrupt and will not investigate.

    If the Democrats and Hillary had their way they would look for 51% of the vote and say screw the rest. Trump is about jobs, which is something all people in America will have access to, not just his voters. He will also address the corruption machine that is selling out America for personal gain.
     
  11. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Trump, it would seem, has an uphill battle ahead.

    Hillary Hawk Clinton is a known war monger, and tool of wallstreet and the military industrial complex.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/hillary-is-the-candidate_b_9168938.html#comments
    From her attack of a 12 year old rape victim in 1975 through Libya and Syria. etc...
    her first instinct seems to have been to attack.

    As secretary of state she was responsible for hundreds of thousands of your fellow human beings either dead or injured or displaced.
    Just imagine what she could do as commander in chief.
    Add in the corruption of pay to play exercised by her and her husband:
    And, HRC is an obvious loose cannon on deck. (You never know where it's headed next, nor who will be injured or killed-------but, somebody is gonna get hurt.)

    ......................................
    "Better the devil you know rather than the devil you don't know."
    Maybe not this time?

    So far, it seems that Trump's first instinct is to negotiate.
    His oftimes bellicose rhetoric from rallies is a bit off-putting, but his quiet moments of interviews seem to hold the fabric of deliberation.

    The debates could well be worth the watch.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
  12. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,384
    You are stupid, you know. When, Paul Wolfawitz, former deputy secretary of defense under the Bush administration, says he's considering voting for Clinton because Trump is too dangerous. It might suggest you dare something into consciousness. Hoping it will release you from such great ineptitude.

    "I wish there were somebody I could be comfortable voting for," Wolfowitz told the German publication Der Spiegel. "I might have to vote for Hillary Clinton, even though I have big reservations about her."
    In the interview, Wolfowitz repeatedly expressed concerns about Trump, saying he agrees with 50 other former Republican security officials who recently blasted Trump as "dangerous."

    http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/26/p...oting-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    Beer:
    Trump may indeed be dangerous to the financial grandness of the military industrial complex of whom your seemingly beloved Paul Wolfowitz is obviously a member.

    If you can not see through that, you have absolutely no business calling anyone else stupid. You have set the bar far too low.

    Let us look at his record:
    post 911, "George W. Bush fired his economic adviser, Lawrence Lindsey, for saying that the total cost of invading Iraq might come to as much as $200 billion. Bush instead stood by such advisers as Paul Wolfowitz, who said that the invasion would be largely "self-financing" via Iraq's oil, and Andrew Natsios, who told an incredulous Ted Koppel that the war's total cost to the American taxpayer would be no more than $1.7 billion."
    So far, over 1.7 trillion dollars actually, and likely over a million dead-----and counting.

    From
    to over 1.7 trillion
    Wow talk about getting it dead wrong.
    This Wolfowitz(loonie) is the guy you want to advise you?
    Lett him handle your finances?
    Are you insane?

    Let's see what wiki has to say:
    (post 9/11) "In the first emergency meeting of the National Security Council on the day of the attacks, Rumsfeld asked, "Why shouldn’t we go against Iraq, not just al-Qaeda?" with Wolfowitz adding that Iraq was a "brittle, oppressive regime that might break easily—it was doable," and, according to John Kampfner, "from that moment on, he and Wolfowitz used every available opportunity to press the case."[36] The idea was initially rejected, at the behest of Secretary of StateColin Powell, but, according to Kampfner, "Undeterred Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz held secret meetings about opening up a second front—against Saddam. Powell was excluded." In such meetings they created a policy that would later be dubbed the Bush Doctrine, centering on "pre-emption" and the war on Iraq, which the PNAC had advocated in their earlier letters."

    Ask yourself why Wolfowitz favors a known hawk and warmonger over Trump?
    Are you also a warmonger?

    Maybe you should visit a war zone for awhile?
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
  14. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,384
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    Interesting?
    Wild speculation and fear mongering?
    No not any more interesting than the ravings of a mad man!
    Are you really that gullible or biased?

    I suspect that your vote has already been cast.
     
  16. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,384
    Er... Should I be apologizing for my lack of effort?
     
  17. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    That is entirely up to you.
     
  18. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    And whose idea is it? Is it grounded in reality? Unfortunately, as with virtually everything you post, it isn't. There is no evidence or reason to believe Obama or Democrats at large would want to cancel elections even if they could cancel elections. As you, along with every American above the age of 10 should know that the POTUS has no role in the election process. Each state organizes and conducts its own elections. If a state doesn't conduct elections and doesn't vote in the Electoral College, that's on state government. Now why on Earth would a state deliberately chose to disenfranchise its residents?

    Why would Democrats, even if the could, want to cancel an election they are winning? By all accounts, all the evidence indicates the fall election will be a landslide for Democrats. It doesn't get much better for Democrats. So why would they want to cancel that exactly? As is always the case with you, your assertions are not only factually wrong but preposterous as well. But, unfortunately, that's what passes for reason in so called "conservative" circles these days thanks in no small part to the Republican entertainment industry which keeps the Republican based dumbed-down and ignorant.

    The unfortunate fact for you and your so called "conservative" fellows is Democrats can win in a fair fight. That's why Republicans have relied heavily on very undemocratic methods to achieve and maintain a political advantage e.g. gerrymandering, and the disenfranchisement of millions of Americans and the undemocratic aspects of the US government e.g. the apportionment of senators. The unfortunate fact for Republicans is that their key demographic, older lesser educated whites, is a vanishing demographic. That demographic problem necessitates these extraordinary and undemocratic measures Republicans have and continue to use in order to maintain power. The fact is the Republican Party, i.e. so called conservatives. are not representative of the American people as they are wont to believe.

    Yes, the Donald has had a good life. His father was one of the richest men in the country and the world. He hasn't wanted for anything his entire life. His success is debatable. Since Trump will not release any material financial information about himself, we really don't know how successful he has or hasn't been. We do know he has called himself the "King of Debt", and we do know his companies have gone bankrupt several times. But yet you believe Trump is successful even though you have no evidence of same. Trump's major success was being born into the nation's wealthiest family. But then he really had not control over that, did he?

    Here is the problem with your gloomy perspective of America, as with virtually all of your perspectives, it's not grounded in reality. The American economy has never been larger. Americans have never been more prosperous. They have never been more productive. They have never been healthier. They have never lived longer. It's military, owing to new technologies, has never been stronger or better organized or better trained. Never in the history of mankind has mankind been as scientifically and technologically advanced. Our children will face challenges, each generation has faced challenges. But their lives will be longer, healthier and more prosperous than at any time in the history of mankind. America is already great. Working with our allies, being respectful of other nations, even when they disagree with us, isn't a sign of weakness. It's a big part of what makes us strong.

    What has sabotaged the future and the health of the nation is the Republican Party. By refusing to do anything to help the economy, by putting party and ideology above the health and well being of the nation and the world economy, Republicans have repeatedly endangered the American economy lest they should provide Obama and Democrats a political advantage. That's sabotage, and Republicans have repeatedly attempted to sabotage the American economy in an attempt to gain a political advantage. That's despicable e.g. repeated attempts to cause a dept default.

    The unfortunate fact for you and your fellow so called "conservatives" is the nation's economic numbers are very good in-spite of every effort by Republicans to sabotage them. The fact is the debt despite the profligate spending of the preceding Republican administration and the trillions of dollars it added to the nation's debt during its administration and the trillions of dollars that will be added in future years because of its actions and incompetency, is still very moderate and taxes remain at historic lows. The unfortunate fact for you is the US does have the ability to maintain its debt. It isn't unmanageable nor is it dire.

    Yes, Democrats created the student loan program which has allowed many Americans to get an education. That's generally considered a good thing. It's how physicians, nurses, EMTs, dental hygienists, engineers, accountants, businessmen, tradesmen, and teachers are trained in this country. That's normally considered a good thing, especially by those who received the loans. It's one of the many things that has made this country great.

    Dealing with our illegal aliens in a humane and reasonable way isn't a bad thing. In fact after more than a year of saying Trump wanted to create deportation squads to seek out and deport the 11-12 million illegal aliens in this country who are working and productive residents, has now adopted the Democratic position on illegal aliens. Trump's illegal alien plan is a lot like Obama's plan, depending on the day and his audience.

    Yeah, I remember how Bernie Sanders was portrayed during the primaries. He was treated very respectfully. The Democratic primary process was pretty much a sleeper compared to the Republican primary primaries. Clinton and Sanders pretty much agreed on everything but the methodology. You had previously asserted that Sanders was bought out with the a home. That assertion was previously debunked as a lie. You are now deliberately being dishonest. The unfortunate fact for you is Bernie was not bought out.

    And exactly how will he do those things? The fact is Trump is all about Trump. Trump has always been about Trump and the greater glory of Trump. Unlike Clinton he has never been big on charity. He has never been big on humanitarian efforts or public service. What you are doing here is scapegoating. Republicans have repeatedly abused and ignored the minority in congress. That's a fact and they have done it for decades e.g. the Hastert Rule.

    The unfortunate fact for you and your fellow so called "conservatives" i.e. Republicans is that the nation is now very close to full-employment. That too is just a simple mater of fact. For all this Republican talk about jobs, the nation is very close to full-employment. The unemployment rate has been reduced by more than half by President Obama and Democrats despite everything Republicans have done to thwart it. That's an easily verifiable fact.

    Again, Republicans are on the wrong side of the facts.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
  19. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,524
    fyi
    from:
    http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

    Data extracted on: August 27, 2016 (2:53:46 PM)

    Labor Force Statistics from the Current Population Survey

    Series Id: LNS11300000
    Seasonally Adjusted
    Series title: (Seas) Labor Force Participation Rate
    Labor force status: Civilian labor force participation rate
    Type of data: Percent or rate
    Age: 16 years and over

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    With only 63% of labor force participation rate: The numbers don't add up to anything near "full employment".
     
  20. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Oh, the numbers don't add up? Then please explain how they don't add up? The fact is the labor force participation rate has had very little impact on the unemployment rate. I've done the numbers, they do add up. Labor force participation rates have had precious little impact on the unemployment rate. And the fact is unemployment rates have fallen dramatically. They are now less than half of what they were in 20o9.

    And that has nothing to do with full employment, the fact is the US is now approaching full employment. We have seen a rise in wage rates. That's very indicative of full employment. Employers are having difficulty finding employees and that's being reflected in higher wage rates. That's bad news for Republicans hence all this obfuscation with respect to labor force participation rates. The fact is the labor force has been shrinking and will continue to shrink as a result of long-term demographic changes. My generation, the Baby Boomers, are retiring. But they are not retiring all at once. They are slowly retiring with each passing month. About 300,000 Baby Boomers retire each month, with a labor force of about 160 million people, that's just not significant. It's about .1883% of the labor force. Add to that fact, when people drop out of the labor force they are taken out of both the numerator and the denominator. That's just not significant. It has an insignificant impact on the reported unemployment rate.

    Below is a more complete chart of the labor force participation rate:


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Over the course of the last 16 years, labor force participation rates have gone from 67.3% to 62.,8%. Over the course of almost 2 decades the labor force participation rate has been reduced by 4.5%. That really isn't much over the course of nearly 2 decades. The number of people who drop out of the labor force each month just isn't enough to significantly affect the unemployment rate. Labor force participation rates began falling in 2000 when Baby Boomers began retiring, and everyone expects the labor force will continue to fall for more than a decade. Because Baby Boomers will continue to retire. That has nothing to do with the demand for labor i.e. full employment. It does reduce the supply of laborers. That's why immigration is so important to this nation. We need immigrants. We need new laborers. But then Trump doesn't want new laborers. He wants to build a wall.
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2016
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,427
    You really believe that? OK: What's his threat?

    He certainly isn't planning to raise their taxes, or cut the US military budget in half, or clean up the contracting mess. So that's not what they are worried about.
    Anyone who was around when W&Co were running for office - both times - can tell you that he was voted into office by the same people now supporting Trump, and for largely the same reasons that they now support Trump - including the anti-Clinton circus.

    How did he put it? Fool me once, shame on - - shame on - - you, -- fool me twice, shame on, - - can't get fooled again. Something like that.

    So how many times are you going to get fooled?
     
  22. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Trump was always against the war in Iraq. Hillary voted to support that war. This is fact. If you remember Trump attacked Jeb Bush during the primaries by attacking his brother George for the war. Hillary supported Bush's war, but now she pretends it was the opposite. She is a habitual liar.

    Once the troops were in Iraq Trump was for taking the oil to pay the tab. He is a businessman. Once Iraq was stabilized, Trump was against pulling out the troops from Iraq, quickly, and in telegraphing way, since it would destabilize the region. Hillary and Obama who did this. Hillary screwed up once, then screwed up again. We can't afford another of Hillary's screw ups.
     
  23. joepistole Deacon Blues Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    22,875
    Except that isn't true either. Trump was for the Iraq war before he was against it, and he's on tape saying so. Unfortunately for Republicans facts do matter.
     

Share This Page