US Election 2016

I’m one of those rednecks and I reckon I could demolish literally anyone or even teams of people on this site in a debate.

Remember, it was my area who voted for him the most. We produce some very intelligent people, but it was Bill Clinton that destroyed the industrial base here, and we were still under the Democratic party for years after in the hope they would do something right.

They never did, only got worst and worst. Are we wrong for saying never a Democrat again? Maybe we made a very sane and rational choice? I’m a intellectual from the industrial heart (what is left of it) in the state that supported him at the highest rates.

Your redneck analogy would have to apply to me. How well do you think all the Hillary supporters could hold up in a no holds bar debate against me? I’m exceptional well red, traveled the whole country, made the study of statecraft the center of my philosophy. I’m one of those rednecks, and correctly identified his policies months before he announced them here. I used rhetorical methods parallel to his long before this election cycle on this very forum, and when he came along (I supported Carson at the time) I pointed out he used a very similar system, and that he would win the debates, and the election.

He did. In order to pass off Trump, you gotta pass me off as well, and while I make it easy for a shallow person to pass me off for my name, as it seems it is a mere joke, I’ve proven time and again I’m very well aware of current events, national and international, historical events the world over, as well as philosophy. I’ve torn quite a few assholes out over the years.

I’m one of those red necks. You wouldn’t be able to Puck me out of that crowd. Consider this next time you denigrate half the country as inferior, I can show very much I’m the superior of any person here. There isn’t a person alive who could survive a full blown intellectual contest with me. Not a university, in any country, with any fancy degree or IQ. I’m quite confident of those rednecks, and our ability to stand toe to toe with the supposed best. I wasn’t exactly impressed with my tours of America.

You, pollsters, the mainstream media, the DNC, and more than a few Republicans.

Not by the Trump campaign.

Yeah, focus on that one. If the DNC wants to have any influence in this country again, thery’re going to have to rethink everything.

This is so amazing. I wish The GOP would have focused a bit more on how great it’s going to be to have Republicans running the House, Senate, Presidency, appointing judges, appointing a cabinet, holding 2/3rds of the Govenorships, and etc., instead of making it soully about whether or not Trump himself is wonderful. I suppose though, if they would have reminded people of the full importanceof this election, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein may not have gotten enough votes to stop Hillary.

Of course Trump is really a fascist given that ‘fascist’ is just another word that means “Anybody a liberal doesn’t like.” The only thing he could do to not be called a fascist is apologize for his life and beg Hillary to take the Presidency from him.

I did warn you guys that there is a way for Trump to win despite the most clever intentions. Cleverness means complexity. And complexity means surprises. He actually had two ways to ensure victory. He fell toward the lesser … could have done even far better.

Proving he is a fox, better then that a cunning, crazy as a fox, advantage seeker.
But the other side of this simple logic? For surely there is the other side, well, that’s what to watch for, and it may give pause, or SUPRISE!

What he did to win was to clarify by simplifying. By simplifying he not only made it clear to those in power, including a good portion of the public, but he simultaneously reduced that same issue of complexity from being used against him. If he has enough savvy to keep it clear and simple (certainly not easy to do), he has only the medical world to worry about (they go by entirely different concerns).

He also has to worry about the corporate world, especially the elites of Silicon Valley, who see through
purported naive realism as merely a conveniate prop.

That his mission ahead is ne’er impossible, in spite absolute Republican advantage, because in his case, it will be extremely difficult to reverse the hostility, the excusionism he has run with.

There will be political aftershocks many years to come, and indeed he will use repressive techniques, when his other side again reemerges after the honeymoon.

Silicon Valley is entirely supported by two fundamental things: Entertainment and Surveillance (both high-tech industries). Trump is an avid supporter of both. The corporations favor him strongly. They are not an issue (although having that known is).

Bravura aside, and I am sure we all have a touch for that, I would not allow myself to be drawn down to the level of those unfortunates, Turd, who get drawn into ‘movements’.

If you could draw a parellel with a wide margin,what all movements share is negative values of defiance, based not on reasonable assessment, but on enjubilating the feelings of s brother hood, a feeling they had not come across in their primary years, and now, they are making it up big time. They need mass appeal, approval from their comrades in arms.

Retroactively, the three conflicted powers of the twentieth century were socialism, capitalism, and the vast appeal of emotional elitism, has been sustained, the pronouncement of the end of history did not nullify the survival of this scepter.

This is the crux of the dilemma, and since social nationalism as displayed in it’s wilsonian get up has never been resolved by the two world wars: Here we are again. Inconclusively, residing in a waning U.S., the true to form Marxists can not at this time, their cause and effect not in perfect alliance, what really is left?

Compromise? Take a little from both, and blend them in a palatable tableau as did Obama tried? Nope, this staged bofionery is the last frontier, the image where the world can yet see unexplored territory, the Wild West, the place of uncharted terrain.

The enigma of cults, of mass participation, a participation mystique, where some kind of stability is achieved through a mass rite of mutual flagellation: where no one particular can be blamed, because that’s tantamount to blaming ones’ self.
Adhesion through perplexity and paradox.

Can there be found any historical antecedents to this phenomena? One needn’t scratch their head too long.

Is this a sign of red neck bravura, or something entirely different? Not that this difference is not implicit in a deep level search for identification of values.

Why Hillary lost: Because they voted for the lesser loser…(neither of whom should have been running)…
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyBMhmK79tg[/youtube]

Why Hillary lost is a simple thing to answer- she was a terrible candidate. She had numerous catastrophic flaws, and now that the campaign is over and Democrats aren’t obligated to lie for her, they’re largely admitting this. Trump had his issues too for sure, but enough people thought HIllary was worse and that’s it.

The far more interesting question is why didn’t we all know she was going to lose? Remember, Trump didn’t pull out a last minute victory on the 8th at 9PM. Everything that was said about the race was wrong, for a good portion of the race. Why? Well, of course you can get a big clue by looking on YouTube for the reactions of any given media outlet as they watched the results came in.

I don’t think that Trump is a fascist. Anymore than I think that you are.

But I suspect that, unlike you, Trump is not an objectivist. He just played one because no one runs for president without having to convince millions of voters that he is principled. And that, in fact, he shares the same principles as they do.

So, will Trump play ball with the folks who own and operate the global economy and the military industrial complex – or will he actually try to shake things up?

Is he really no longer a liberal or a libertine when it comes to many “social issues”?

Will he really delight the evangelicals?

Care to make a friendly wager?

I’m sorry you lost, and I’m you can dry your tears in time. But I’m not going to indulge you’re “Let’s pretend I was right all along” masturbation. I think it’s obvious he will do somethings that will delight evangelicals, and will do some other things they won’t like. The only question that actually matters is if he will please them more than Clinton would have, and all he has to do is appoint a Supreme Court Justice for that to be true.

Because most people knew that Trump was an intentional setup who was supposed to give Hillary a good run but then lose. I saw an opening for him to win and warned of it. But I was still surprised that they allowed it. Some games are higher than others, so it isn’t easy to predict.

Not entirely warranted to say and admit he won. After his “win”, after all the votes were counted she is just 2% ahead in popular vote, which is of historical record.

So why the hoopla?

The electoral collage is way disfunctional. It was created as a temporary stop gap program to avoid regional statistical inconsistencies, right after the civil war, in the carpetbagger era.

Trump saw flaw with this as part of the rugged system scenario. So is not the hyperbolic inconsistencies , the very thing which formed the idea if the electoral college’s creation undoing it’s own rationale, in Trump’s very words?

This is classic words of hypocracy, and it may be obvious, but not to lackeys who gave been severely indoctrinated.

The big question is not, that the populace could swallow this line, but how in the world could they develop trust and admiration for him? Or is not that a requisite virtue ant miracle for a POTUS?

No wonder Calexit movements are beginning to have credibility. This is Watergate+,and it is far larger in EFFECT, then anything Clinton MAY have done.

The FBI , is, as likely to be complicit. This is larger then it is presently surmised, and it seems to be snowballing.

Yes, please. Fuck right off- I’ll help you pack. It’s funny how in the face of losing election, whining Dems are coming up with all these strategies to guarentee they never win again.

Well maybe a show of solidarity in the face of repressive techniques are not such a bad thing, after all.

There aren’t any repressive techniques, you’re just whining because you didn’t get the result you wanted. But yes, please, keep whining about how unfair elections are and threatening to pack up your shit and go every time something doesn’t go your way. The electorate plainly loves that.

Well his allusion to Brexit makes my whining a legitimate tit for tat, don’t you think? Or have you become blinded as well by his brilliant rhetoric, as to see this only as a unilateral burden?

This is not whining, but a substantial critique of matters at hand, the devolution of political foresight and fairness into presently accepted practice of nearsighted, slanted and plainly false pronouncements.

The supposedly loosing side is supposed to meekly accept this, and frankly just shrivel away into the same ignorance.

May as well lay down and declare a one party system, and from now on dispense of the popular vote, in favor of a college of electors, who in time, god fearing as they are, soon are won’t to elect a regent.

You still live in a republic?
You have ways to make your personal desires known to your representatives.

What has changed in this election?