posted
At this time, I have resigned myself to that Donald J Trump will be the next President of the United States.
Mr. Trump has taken his candidacy to the point that he knocked off 16 other candidates with more affinity to the Republican Party than he has ever claimed to have. Had the Democrats not had a strong candidate, he could just as easily "pounced" on the Democrats for his base.
All too many global political axioms have been upset; whoever dreamed that the United Kingdom would choose by popular vote to leave the European Union. Whoever dreamed that, like Trump, Bernie Sanders would be a viable candidate. Whoever dreamed that Austria, a country with a standing army of about 20,000 and 50 combat aircraft could be on the world political stage by electing a right wing head of state?
And "back in the States", Hillary has been caught in a lie regarding her health. Likely it's nothing, but try telling that to the opposition.
All told, I fear (and I think I just shared who I favor) the tide has turned, and we are on our way to dismissing the most qualified and experienced first term candidate we have had in quite a while.
Finally, there have been only two exceptions (Bush 41 and Carter serving one term) since the presidency became term limited, as the power has shifted every eight years. That would suggest we the people are ready for another shift.
But somehow the Republic will survive.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't give up hope. While I'll admit this election won't be the Democratic landslide I'd hoped for, I'm still looking for a narrow win for Hillary Clinton. The Electoral College map is still in her favor. If she can hold on to Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Virginia, and pick up Florida or North Carolina, she should have more than the 270 Electoral votes needed. If she can come clean on her health and promise to stop being so evasive, that should put heat on Trump to be more open about his health, tax returns, etc. Which he probably won't. If the non - white minorities are fired up enough, they can make a big difference in the swing states. And that announcement last Friday at Trump's new hotel in D.C. has hopefully got the media to stop treating Trump with kid gloves and to hammer him hard on important issues. I find it appalling that Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, who hasn't a prayer of winning, was asked a more substantive foreign policy question than either of the two major party nominees! Of course that's a lot of if's, but there's always hope!
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would say that I am more nearly resigned that Hillary will be the next president. Not that I am a fan of Trump. Don't know when we have ever has such a pick the lesser of two evils situation.
Hillary is a crook, one of the worst power grabbers in history and that is about the best I can say. Trump is not a whole lot better, but he will be less able to manipulate congress and the courts than Clinton is.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Following up upon Mr. Harris' immediate, I cannot recall which TV talking head owns this observation. But the comment has been made to the effect of, out of 320 million people, all we could come up with are these two?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As one observer said, this choice is like having to go from New York to California, and your only choices are: a 1947 Oldsmobile with no air conditioning, and a Lear Jet with a pilot on PCP and no landing gear. My choice is the Oldsmobile. While it may be uncomfortable, at least it has some chance of completing the trip.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Tyler Cowen recently gathered some of the more interesting theories on his blog Marginal Revolution: America is not ready for a woman president. The Democrats have a lot of policy proposals, but the Republicans are running on big ideas. A more diverse country is a more fractious and polarized country, and over the past few weeks white Republicans have been coming home to their candidate.
I see some truth in those theories, especially the last one. But my single explanation would be this: Clintonworld is a semi-closed system that operates according to its own calendar. Donald Trump is egregious, but at least he’s living in the 21st century, as was Bernie Sanders. Clintonworld operates according to its own time-space continuum that is slightly akilter from our own.
In the 21st century, politics operates around a different axis. It’s not left/right, big government/small government. It’s openness and dynamism versus closedness and security. It’s between those who see opportunity and excitement in the emerging globalized, multiethnic meritocracy against those who see their lives and communities threatened by it.
While Brooks holds that Hillary will "eek it out", it appears to me this is a case of the politics of 24 years ago meets the politics of today.
Case in point: 24 years ago, presidential debates were aired by outlets such as PBS and CSPAN with audiences sitting in rapt attention such as at a symphony concert. Today, commercial networks and audiences acting as they would at a sporting event.
Addendum:
Here is an essay that will appear in tomorrow's Journal, which holds to my immediate thought:
The first presidential debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is only days away. What can we hope for? A revealing gaffe, a zinger that hits home, a flash of true spontaneity or a glimpse of the real character of the candidates—these seem to be the most anyone is hoping for, and more than we are likely to get.
Debates, at their very best, are the diamonds of democratic politics—crystal clear in argument, sparkling with wit, free from the discolorations of petty self-interest and shaped to focus light on the great issues of the day. But diamonds are rare, and no one is expecting a jewel on Monday night. The problem isn’t only that our candidates are lackluster, tempting as that explanation may be. Nor does the fault lie mainly in the quality of the questions or the skill of the moderator. The forum itself is flawed. How many ways are there to say, “Vote for me”? That line will always be more advertisement than argument.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The main advantage the Democratic party has is a sufficiently brainwashed proportion of the electorate that would vote for whoever the democratic candidate is even if it were the donkey. As to watching the political debates, not sure I am going to bother, either. It is not as if we have two intelligent individuals dealing with issues on which both have well thought out positions reasonably supported by facts. That has been gone for a long time. What we have is two masters of prevarication having at each other. Why bother watching? These candidates give us a situation that is much similar to that when Bill was caught with his pants open quite a few years ago. At that time my job had me going to Singapore for a few weeks. As in the taxi going from airport, the driver asked what nationality I was. When I said, American, his response was "Your president" followed by laughter. That is what we don't want any more of, particularly after the last 8 years.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
An informative article appears at the Real Clear Politics site, from which David Brooks linked in my immediate, drew his "50 points" reference. Regardless of whose square your felt tipped pen touches 44 days from now, this article outlines why there is not a 50 point, or thereabouts, spread.
Fair Use:
Dear Hillary: Here's Why You Aren't 50 Points Ahead
Wednesday, in a videotaped message to a labor group in Las Vegas, an exasperated-sounding Hillary Clinton closed her remarks by saying, “So having said all that, why aren’t I 50 points ahead, you might ask?”
It’s a question Democrats all over the country are asking as the 2016 race heads into the final stretch with their candidate clinging to a small lead over a bombastic billionaire and reality television star. Clinton and her supporters are legitimately bewildered as to why this race is so close.
But it’s not really a mystery. The reasons are plentiful and have been on display throughout the course of the campaign.
I can only reiterate my earlier thought; politics of 24 years ago, meet the politics of today.
Another journalistic development is that The Times in the Sunday print edition, will come out for Hillary. This is of course expected as I cannot recall when they last came out for a Republican nominee. But what is unexpected is their timing. Gray Lady usually endorses on the Sunday prior to Election Day week, or 10 days prior. Is Lady's Editorial Board worried? I fear they are:
In any normal election year, we’d compare the two presidential candidates side by side on the issues. But this is not a normal election year. A comparison like that would be an empty exercise in a race where one candidate — our choice, Hillary Clinton — has a record of service and a raft of pragmatic ideas, and the other, Donald Trump, discloses nothing concrete about himself or his plans while promising the moon and offering the stars on layaway. (We will explain in a subsequent editorial why we believe Mr. Trump to be the worst nominee put forward by a major party in modern American history.)
But this endorsement would also be an empty exercise if it merely affirmed the choice of Clinton supporters. We’re aiming instead to persuade those of you who are hesitating to vote for Mrs. Clinton — because you are reluctant to vote for a Democrat, or for another Clinton, or for a candidate who might appear, on the surface, not to offer change from an establishment that seems indifferent and a political system that seems broken.
Running down the other guy won’t suffice to make that argument. The best case for Hillary Clinton cannot be, and is not, that she isn’t Donald Trump.
The best case is, instead, about the challenges this country faces, and Mrs. Clinton’s capacity to rise to them.
When The Journal surely endorses Donald Trump, will they be so eloquent? Time will tell.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Her command of the facts and issues was simply superior to the other guy. You don't have to love her; but she will do the job.
Others will have a different take which it's my obligation to respect. But this is mine as set forth.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
"You don't have to love her, but she will do the job". That sums it up perfectly! It should be her campaign motto.
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jerome Nicholson: "You don't have to love her, but she will do the job". That sums it up perfectly! It should be her campaign motto.
And quite a few people are scared of what sort of job she will do.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810-11 (2d Cir. 1934)
Appellate Judge Learned Hand: 2d Cir
Obviously Trump was doing business using pass through entities such as Partnerships, S-Corporations, and LLC's (in jurisdictions where such were recognized at that time), the losses that incurred were deductible from his Gross Income otherwise reportable on his Individual Return. A Net Operating Loss may first be carried back for three years resulting in a refund of taxes previously paid then be carried forward to offset future income until the earlier of used up or fifteen years (those numbers have changed over the years but the concept remains in place today).
So have we "crooked Donald" on this matter? No; but what we do have is an ostensible businessman who is guided more by greed and ego than on the expectation of a favorable return on investment largely made with "Opium" - OPM - other people's money.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that it looks like the tide has turned in Hillary's favor with the polls summarized at Real Clear giving her a 6.7 point lead, and the Electoral polls showing she only needs 14 votes from the battlegrounds, there is a concern that I heard expressed at the coffee house this morning.
Hillary supporters may simply decide "she's got it" and not show up TO VOTE!!!!.
For someone like myself and I'm sure many others around here hold that to vote is not simply a right, but it is a DUTY. Unfortunately that view is not universal.
I suppose one here in "solid Hillary" Illinois, what's the diff? But what if a voter in Pennsylvania or "dead heat" Ohio held same? I think all of us here remember the 2K "Gorebushoff" resulting in some say, a "selected" president rather than an elected.
Moral: get out and vote for the candidates of your choice.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
This afternoon, I'm going to do something for the first time in this life - vote early.
For a Chicago Symphony concert being performed at Wheaton College this evening, I'll be in Wheaton, the Dupage County Seat, anyway. I'd like to get out there before sundown so that I can scout out the parking at the venue. Then, since my mind is made up on all candidates and referenda issues, I may as well "get it over" in what the weather forecaster I believe the most around here says will be a "September in Late October day". So, I drive over to county farm where the County offices are located (on what was once a farm where the "bad boys" worked off their steam and other vengeances).
While voting was always a very neighborly ritual around here, the School District has kicked the Election Commission out owing to security concerns (hey I pay for these fortresses, don't I get to see what my taxbucks bought?). As a result, about four precincts have been combined into one, and no assurance the Judges are my neighbors anymore.
So I guess I'll find out this afternoon how this modern way to vote will play out. Obviously, Vladimir and his houseguest Eddie have assured the ultimate step of voting on-line will never occur at least in any time I have left around these parts.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
A comment I heard recently is that "how, out of the estimated 152 million people who are eligible to be President (age, "natural born", residency), did we ever end up with these two?".
I realize some will hold that is reason to "sleep in" and show up late for work (and the boss can't say booey), but I hold to vote is a DUTY. and with so many alternatives available - early voting, vote by mail - excuses are hard to come by. I voted early this year and at the polling place I went to, the process is "smooth as silk". Further, I have complete confidence my ballot will be safeguarded and counted.
So, even if "both of 'em turn you off", pick the lesser of the major party evils, and do your duty.
Just my thoughts.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know The Times reports that Hillary has an 87% chance of victory, but I'm still very concerned. Even if she wins, you can be sure that the disgruntled Trumps will be set to obstruct her legislative agenda in any way possible. We could be looking at a Watergate, where the scandal was "on the hush" until after the Election, all over again where this time the inferences, and maybe even the facts, were known prior to Election Day.
Likewise, should the Trumps win, the Dems will be looking to block and discredit any legislative agenda set forth.
Either way , it "ain't a gonna be pretty"; volks.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman: there are a lot of anti-Hillary people that are anything but pro-Donald. Despite that, they will be loaded and raring to go to work against Hillary's agenda simply because they think it is bad for the US.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Pat Buchanan, I always enjoyed your "passably fair and balanced" commentary on McLaughlin Group, but since that show closed, is this the kind of journalism you have sunk to?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Hillary wins the election I think it's very likely that a GOP controlled House would hold impeachment hearings sooner than later. But if the Senate is held by the Dems, what's the point?
Far more intriguing would be a victory by Trump. I don't think the Dems would have much trouble presenting a list of impeachable offenses against President Trump. But I'm wondering if the far-right and evangelical members of the House would support articles of impeachment against Trump knowing that Mike Pence is much more aligned with their agendas and philosophies than Trump is. Then, would the Democratic majority in the Senate be willing to replace Trump with Pence?
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Vincent, it is indeed ominous to hold that as soon as Hillary, should she win and as soon as the ostensible "unification luncheon" with Congress is over, that the machinery to impeach with the (unattainable) goal of removing her from office will start.
But I won't rule it out.
Trump however, is a different case. He has never held public office before, so it will be difficult to find "high crimes and misdemeanors" on him.
But as the famous line of script from the movie "Casablanca" goes, Louie says to the Nazi prelate "Rick has done nothing wrong" whereby the prelate responds "Find something", and the Democrats start digging for that unpaid parking ticket.
Are "We the People" as divided as we have ever been? After all, our divisions once resulted in a civil war when an industrial economy confronted an agrarian. I'd like to think "we're not there yet".
There is an opinion piece in yesterday's Journal that I think is open sourced at this time and is enlightened reading:
..‘We’ve been divided in much, much worse fashion before, like 1861 when we were actually killing each other.’......Americans elected the greatest president, Lincoln, four years after the worst, Buchanan, so there’s some hope that 2020 will redeem 2016, whoever wins on Tuesday. But whatever the future holds, perhaps the past could help beleaguered voters make sense of the choice between the two most unpopular candidates since the advent of modern polling.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
---that Obama will pardon Hillary, win or lose, of any and all crimes that may have been committed while holding public office. The country would be the loser if Congress was tied up witch hunting.
---that Obama will commute, but not pardon, Rob Blagovietch to "time served". The fourteen year sentence was simply too harsh.
---that, if Hillary wins, the Senate in the post-Election Lame Duck session, will be very quick to confirm Judge Garland to the SCOTUS. They'd sooner take chances with the Moderate Obama needed to appoint if there was to be a prayer of confirmation, than whatever "Elizabeth Warren" Hillary would appoint with a Senate in which she had the 51 votes.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this will vary from state to state, and even county to county, but what are your usual voting hours on election day?
Here in the UK the polling booths are open nationwide from 7.00am to 10.00pm but looking at the timeline for tonight it seems that some of your states close their doors as early as 7pm?
Posts: 395 | From: england | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Washington State is a vote-by-mail state and the ballots have to be postmarked by Nov. 8 or dropped off at a ballot drop box by 8pm on election day.
Posts: 831 | From: Seattle | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
I was having "bad feelings" as early as 601PM CT when the early States went "big" for The Donald. By 9P, I knew "this looks bad" and went to bed with the radio on. At about 3A CT, I heard some reference to "President-Elect Trump", and then awakening to this day that the most stunning political upset in modern times, maybe even all times, has occurred.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
here is the popular vote this morning about 10:30am, google says with 90% reporting: Trump 59,265,360 47.505% Clinton 59,458,295 47.660% Johnson 4,032,116 3.232% Stein 1,203,578 0.965% Other 796,844 0.639% Total 124,756,193 100.000% This return also shows the reason behind the Electoral College system. Without it being able to pull of a good majority in a couple of populous areas, you can thumb your nose at the rest of the country. That is without near unanimity in the District of Columbia and an overwhelming majority in California, Clinton would not come near a majority of the popular vote, actually plurality as neither has a majority.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With regards to Mr. Harris' immediate posting, as noted through this topic, I supported Hillary, but I am really as independent voter as there can be. My Presidential voting record to date is 7R 6D and 1I:
'64 Johnson (D) '68 Humphrey (D) '72 Nixon (R) '76 Ford (R) '80 Anderson (I) '84 Reagan (R) '88 Bush 41(R) '92 Bush 41(R) '96 W Clinton (D) '2K Gore (D) '04 Kerry (D) '08 McCain (R) '12 Romney (R) '16 H Clinton (D)
OK someone is going to say that I'm not too good picking winners, as I haven't done so since '96. For picking a first term winner, it's back to '88.
But of one thing I'm certain; it is time to scrap the Electoral College and start electing the President by popular vote. Now that it appears Hillary will win the popular vote, and Gore did win it during 2K, I think it is time to allow all voters, regardless of where they reside, to have their vote count equally - just as it is for any other Federal office. No more feelings for residents of "solid Red or Blue" states that their Presidential vote doesn't count.
True, the Electoral over Popular has gone against my preferences twice, but it could just as easily go against "the other guys" in '24. It will take a Constitutional Amendment, but there is no time like the present to get the ball rolling.
Thoughts, anyone?
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Gilbert, my hat's off to you (if I wore one). You called back in September. I was still confident last night when my sister called at 9PM , angry because she thought Trump had won. I reassured her, saying it would be decuded with Florida and North Carolina, if Hillary's "Blue Wall" held. She went to bed at 12 (or so I thought), and I stayed up till 2 ET, after those two states had called. Nevada went for Hillary, so there was still a way for her to win. I woke up at 5AM and went to my smartphone. OMFG> Somewhere in there in the Afterlife, there is a redneck Texan going, "HAW! HAW! Told ja so!" Get in line NOW for those Marks of the Beast before it gets too long!
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actual e-spondence with two of my friends (both happily married women) in which "only the needle has been changed to protect the record":
1) I'm with all of you. This is FRIGHTENING!!!
2) I had to go to bed early too. Couldn’t bear to watch. Egads! I was hoping I had just had a bad nightmare. I woke to messages from around the world with invitations to move. Feeling very bummed right now. Scout and I are going to take an extra long walk this morning!
On Nov 8, 2016, at 8:58 PM, gbnorman@comcast.net wrote:
I'm going to bed.
This is not how things were supposed to go. The distinct possibility of President Trump is just too much for me to take.
But I'm blessed to have you both in friendship - and should such come to pass, President Trump can't take that away from me.
GBN Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, there are a lot of people that are greatly relieved to see Clinton not get it. In fact there are many, and I am one of them, that are absolutely mystified by what is so attractive about her being president.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
More e-spondence from my earlier email (admittedly between Hillary supporters) and in this case happily married woman in the Social Services field:
I've felt intense sorrow and worry today. I have to remember that she won the popular vote, so the majority of Americans truly want to be inclusive, to offer kindness and to care for one another.
Let's not lose hope. Let us look out for those around us who may fall victim to those who were incited to violence from all the hateful rhetoric.
Much love
Now an additional word from me: "Mr. Trump, I am an American, and you are my President. Godspeed".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Mr. Trump ostensibly ran as a Republican, but he was effectively a third-party candidate who happened to campaign under the banner of one of the two major parties. Casting himself as an outsider, he not only savaged leaders in both parties but he made a mockery of nearly all the pieties of the American political system
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I've felt intense sorrow and worry today. I have to remember that she won the popular vote, so the majority of Americans truly want to be inclusive, to offer kindness and to care for one another.
Sorry, but it was not a majority, it was a plurality. The numbers found on line as of now (12:00 noon,Friday): 60,071,650 = 47.40% - Trump 60,467,245 = 47.72% - Clinton 4,123,062 = 3.25% - Johnson 1,237,116 = 0.98% - Stein 820,690 = 0.65% - others So, now what? Give it to the plurality, or have a runoff?
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
From reviewing Real Clear Politics through the Election cycle, there was one poll, sponsored by the Los Angeles Times and University of Southern California, that consistently reported Trump was going to win. I guess you could say "the little Red boat in the big Blue sea".
Linked below is an NPR interview with the Poll's Director that I found interesting, and possibly others will too:
Mr. Trump ostensibly ran as a Republican, but he was effectively a third-party candidate who happened to campaign under the banner of one of the two major parties. Casting himself as an outsider, he not only savaged leaders in both parties but he made a mockery of nearly all the pieties of the American political system
Michael Moore also deserves kudos for correctly predicting the election outcome:http://globalnews.ca/news/3026451/michael-moore-heres-why-donald-trump-will-win-the-election/
Whate he said afterward is also compelling:http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/michael-moore-joins-wide-ranging-election-talk-806604867876 Yes, Mr. Moderator, I know the links are too long, but I don't know where to cut them off. I think I'll be visiting Washington this weekend. With my age and health issues, I may not live long enough to see a decent person again occupy the White House!
Posts: 510 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Being 75 myself and that Presidents, save three exceptions since term limits were imposed under the 22nd Amendment during 1951, serve the two terms allowed, I too am confronted with The Donald being my last President as well.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Admittedly, I haven’t too many memories of 1948 Dewey v. Truman. I was seven and in a family where you were taught not to use dirty words - one of which was Democrat.
I remember being put to bed and my Mother saying "we will have President Dewey tomorrow". Nevermind that HST is considered the 6th best President to date.
Imagine waking up "the morning after".
Here is the famous photo of how sixty eight years ago, "they got it wrong". At least this time through, there is not quite the same evidential matter.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a month to go; here's "a few" from some of my "Lefty" friends:
1) The Donald will not serve out even one term; "he's had his fun" and he can say "I won". Leave that gritty stuff of presiding over the Government, and with a Congress that could prove to be "not exactly a rubber stamp", to others.
2) Ivanka will assume many of the duties of the First Lady. She is just as good looking as Meliana, knows more about "how the game is played", and is ambitious enough to want to "play the Washington Game".
3) "There's something wrong" with Baron. It looks like a high-Asperberger degree of autism. Who knows how much he was "Medded up" for his stage appearance, but he did not look very comfortable (and large crowds and noise make "Aspbies" very uncomfortable). It is also why Meliana wants to stay in New York with him.
4) Now "last but not least"; there was a reputable polling outfit that CNN hired to do "voter exit profiles". This outfit concluded that Trump "had it" in enough "battlegrounds" to give it to him. CNN said "thank you very much" (I'd like to think paid the bill) and otherwise buried the outfit's results. So they ended up like every other news organization "calling it wrong".
I think this Election is the second-most, 9/11 being first, "news story" of this "adolescent" century.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With a little under a month to go, I will say I have a far better impression of the Donald than I did on election night. The biggest, his proposed cabinet picks: People with real experience in the real world, not a bunch of political hacks. Also, these being people that honestly have the best interests of the USA in mind, not currying political favors or shaking in their boot about what is "politically correct" and what the rest of the world might think.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
