Why Trump was Elected

[Cum Laude]

Trump was elected for several reasons:
1) Hillary is world-class corrupt and a lying psychopath
2) Decent, thinking people were completely FED-UP with the bullshit coming from the Alt-Left Dem party. The shame, guilt, victimhood, etc. they were assigning at will. And plenty of fools accepted it.
3) There’s a good chance that he is the designated bag-holder when this all comes crashing down. If there’s merit to that idea, I figure he’s well aware of his intended role and that Deep State was going to install him no matter what.
4) There are more…if you care to open your eyes and ears…they aren’t hard to discern.

IS TRUMP A PUPPET OF DEEP STATE?

[hot enough]

I don't know what portion of those people are "[D]ecent, thinking people" but I do know that there was a portion that represent the dregs of humanity, the white racists who mirror the guy they voted for. 

[Moonlight Graham]

I think the biggest reason why he was elected was that Americans were tired of getting screwed over by the corrupt political establishment in the GOP and Democrat parties, and he promised to fix problems no other candidate has really ever talked about.  The issues he cared about appealed to older white men, which is a very big (and powerful) demographic.

[H10]

15 hours ago, Cum Laude said:

Trump was elected for several reasons:
1) Hillary is world-class corrupt and a lying psychopath
2) Decent, thinking people were completely FED-UP with the bullshit coming from the Alt-Left Dem party. The shame, guilt, victimhood, etc. they were assigning at will. And plenty of fools accepted it.
3) There’s a good chance that he is the designated bag-holder when this all comes crashing down. If there’s merit to that idea, I figure he’s well aware of his intended role and that Deep State was going to install him no matter what.
4) There are more…if you care to open your eyes and ears…they aren’t hard to discern.

IS TRUMP A PUPPET OF DEEP STATE?

1) Donald is a bigger liar, who was on trial for child rape, and fraud while he was still running for president.  Donald is a world class corrupt liar and psychopath too.  While Clinton is corrupt, Trump was the other side of that corruption

2)  There is no alt-left.  What you have are blue dog democrats like Clinton and Joe Manchin who are elected by basically being Republican lite and progressive liberals like Sanders, Obama, FDR, LBJ, etc.  Had Obama ran again, he'd have won in a landslide, as would have sanders.  Obama had over 52% popularity, compared to Trumps 37%.  Even Jim Webb would have beaten Trump.  Clinton was literally the worst candidate dems could have run.

3) Trump won because Clinton is so unpopular and unlikeable and out of touch with reality.  She has not understood how the nation became polarized, she had a bad campaign staff who didn't explain to her that she would not flip southern deep red states like her husband did when he ran, and she should have focuses on the midwest.  Clinton was campaigning for republican votes in the final days in places like arizona, ohio, georgia,louisana, florida, north carolina, when she should have been campaigning in michigan, wisconsin and pennsylvania, because that is all she needed to win.  Heck she almost lost new hampshire too.  It did help Trump alot that the republican congress had redistricted the map to favour republicans. Clintons racist past also hurt her badly, because african americans stayed home and felt comfortable that if Trump won, the nation would do well because of Clinton calling them superpredators and locking them up unjustly.  Clinton deserved to lose, terrible candidate.

[Cum Laude]

6 hours ago, hernanday said:

1) Donald is a bigger liar, who was on trial for child rape, and fraud while he was still running for president.  Donald is a world class corrupt liar and psychopath too.  While Clinton is corrupt, Trump was the other side of that corruption

2)  There is no alt-left.  What you have are blue dog democrats like Clinton and Joe Manchin who are elected by basically being Republican lite and progressive liberals like Sanders, Obama, FDR, LBJ, etc.  Had Obama ran again, he'd have won in a landslide, as would have sanders.  Obama had over 52% popularity, compared to Trumps 37%.  Even Jim Webb would have beaten Trump.  Clinton was literally the worst candidate dems could have run.

3) Trump won because Clinton is so unpopular and unlikeable and out of touch with reality.  She has not understood how the nation became polarized, she had a bad campaign staff who didn't explain to her that she would not flip southern deep red states like her husband did when he ran, and she should have focuses on the midwest.  Clinton was campaigning for republican votes in the final days in places like arizona, ohio, georgia,louisana, florida, north carolina, when she should have been campaigning in michigan, wisconsin and pennsylvania, because that is all she needed to win.  Heck she almost lost new hampshire too.  It did help Trump alot that the republican congress had redistricted the map to favour republicans. Clintons racist past also hurt her badly, because african americans stayed home and felt comfortable that if Trump won, the nation would do well because of Clinton calling them superpredators and locking them up unjustly.  Clinton deserved to lose, terrible candidate.

So basically you have zero understanding of Deep State. Whadda shame.

[eyeball]

25 minutes ago, Cum Laude said:

So basically you have zero understanding of Deep State. Whadda shame.

Isn't this just the old Star Chamber with a do-over, or have I got my conspiracies mixed-up?

[H10]

8 hours ago, Cum Laude said:

So basically you have zero understanding of Deep State. Whadda shame.

Zero understanding of Trump's fantasy conspiracy theories.  Where was the deep state that bush and cheney put in?

[blackbird]

The question is Why Trump won.  It's a tough question, but I think there was deep dissatisfaction with Clinton, Obama and his administration.  Trump came in as a kind of renegade opposed to the establishment.  He was going to drain the swamp in Washington.   A lot of people who have lost their jobs or have seen their standard of living go down over the years became suspicious of the democrats and the mainstream media.  There is a lot of distrust of established politicians who make lots of promises but never seem to change much.  I think many people decided to give Trump a chance thinking he might actually go in and shake things up a bit and accomplish something.

[Michael Hardner]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_state_in_the_United_States

Quote

The idea of a deep state in the United States is a conspiracy theory^[1][2][3] whose adherents assert that there exists a coordinated effort by career government employees to influence state policy without regard for democratically elected leadership.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} The term, which was originally used to refer to sophisticated shadow governments in countries like Turkey, has also been used in U.S. political science to refer to entrenched government institutions wielding power, without necessarily implying a conspiracy.^[9][10]

The OP offers no evidence, so to my mind it taking the former definition from the article quoted here.  Those without extended experience with large organizations can't appreciate the power of randomness, when it is thrown against a complex organism.  The strongest human can be killed by a flu bug.  Complex defence systems can be compromised by a single bad assumption in design.

In the present case, we have a political machine that has been managed by advertising firms and personality management consultants since Lyndon Johnson founded the 20th century American political technique by fusing advertising, military-industrial-complex funds, and the Nazi "big lie".  We have a candidate who hijacked that system to publicize his brand and found a back door to nomination, and eventually the President.  That's how it happened.

The entrenched machine of state includes corrupt individuals, innate self-serving values, and well-intentioned agents all of whom will resist a democratically elected president.  This makes for a conflict that has been years in the making.  Those forces of resistance do constitute a kind of state of their own, which makes me believe in Deep State following the latter definition above.

[OftenWrong]

"Hijacked" is a bit of a strong word. Utilized, more like it.

[Michael Hardner]

Yes, I suppose you are right.  The system wasn't subverted or taken by force.  It was in place to promote candidates, with the assumption that they would be using it for conventional purposes.

[overthere]

On 3/21/2017 at 10:29 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

I think the biggest reason why he was elected was that Americans were tired of getting screwed over by the corrupt political establishment in the GOP and Democrat parties, and he promised to fix problems no other candidate has really ever talked about.  The issues he cared about appealed to older white men, which is a very big (and powerful) demographic.

His appeal was to far more than just disgruntled old white men, much broader than that.

This was not a Canadian style election, where 39% gets you a large majority.

The most interesting wrinkle of the Trump election is that he is widely feared and loathed within his own party, while many purported Democrats also voted for him.  I do not believe the meme that his election was anti Hilary, it was much more profooud/deeper than that.

 

[taxme]

On 3/22/2017 at 8:46 AM, hernanday said:

1) Donald is a bigger liar, who was on trial for child rape, and fraud while he was still running for president.  Donald is a world class corrupt liar and psychopath too.  While Clinton is corrupt, Trump was the other side of that corruption

2)  There is no alt-left.  What you have are blue dog democrats like Clinton and Joe Manchin who are elected by basically being Republican lite and progressive liberals like Sanders, Obama, FDR, LBJ, etc.  Had Obama ran again, he'd have won in a landslide, as would have sanders.  Obama had over 52% popularity, compared to Trumps 37%.  Even Jim Webb would have beaten Trump.  Clinton was literally the worst candidate dems could have run.

3) Trump won because Clinton is so unpopular and unlikeable and out of touch with reality.  She has not understood how the nation became polarized, she had a bad campaign staff who didn't explain to her that she would not flip southern deep red states like her husband did when he ran, and she should have focuses on the midwest.  Clinton was campaigning for republican votes in the final days in places like arizona, ohio, georgia,louisana, florida, north carolina, when she should have been campaigning in michigan, wisconsin and pennsylvania, because that is all she needed to win.  Heck she almost lost new hampshire too.  It did help Trump alot that the republican congress had redistricted the map to favour republicans. Clintons racist past also hurt her badly, because african americans stayed home and felt comfortable that if Trump won, the nation would do well because of Clinton calling them superpredators and locking them up unjustly.  Clinton deserved to lose, terrible candidate.

I am still waiting for the leftist liberal democrats trying to get something on Trump? So far they cannot seem to get anywhere. I wonder why? Do you? I await your reply. 

[taxme]

On 3/21/2017 at 9:29 PM, Moonlight Graham said:

I think the biggest reason why he was elected was that Americans were tired of getting screwed over by the corrupt political establishment in the GOP and Democrat parties, and he promised to fix problems no other candidate has really ever talked about.  The issues he cared about appealed to older white men, which is a very big (and powerful) demographic.

Not only did old white men(racist thing to say)voted for Trump. There were young and old white women. There were blacks and latinos who voted for Trump. There were other nationalities that voted for Trump. Trump spoke the truth and was rewarded for telling the truth. A lesson for our own Canadian politicians here in Canada. And the only one that seems to be doing just that and is telling the truth is Kevin O'Leary. The man holds no punches back. 

[H10]

8 hours ago, taxme said:

I am still waiting for the leftist liberal democrats trying to get something on Trump? So far they cannot seem to get anywhere. I wonder why? Do you? I await your reply. 

Child rape and fraud are enough.

[taxme]

4 hours ago, hernanday said:

Child rape and fraud are enough.

So, why has Trump not been arrested and charged for those "accusations" yet? Of course I know why but you obviously don't. 

[segnosaur]

 

 

On 3/21/2017 at 8:25 PM, Cum Laude said:

Trump was elected for several reasons:
1) Hillary is world-class corrupt and a lying psychopath

Correction... The republicans managed to falsely convince people that Hillary was corrupt/lying.

If you look at politifact, she does have a few lies/falsehoods given (which is  understandable... you can't live for decades under a political microscope without having a few problems uncovered). But compared to other politicians (and especially Trump), the number of lies/falsehoods given is quite low. Yet somehow Trump and the republicans managed to get the "Hillary=liar" argument to stick.

Quote

2) Decent, thinking people were completely FED-UP with the bullshit coming from the Alt-Left Dem party. The shame, guilt, victimhood, etc. they were assigning at will. And plenty of fools accepted it.

So they are replacing left-wing "victimhood" with Trump-style "Its the mexican rapist/muslim's fault". Some may not consider that to be a sigificant improvement.

Quote

3) There’s a good chance that he is the designated bag-holder when this all comes crashing down. If there’s merit to that idea, I figure he’s well aware of his intended role and that Deep State was going to install him no matter what.

4) There are more…if you care to open your eyes and ears…they aren’t hard to discern.

IS TRUMP A PUPPET OF DEEP STATE?

 

 

Errr.. not likely. Things happen. There doesn't have to be some master conspiracy at play to explain what's happening in the world. You just need a bunch of people who have different political, religious and economic ideas and their inevitable conflicts will cause the type of chaos we see now.

As for why Trump was elected:

When Bill Clinton won, he managed to build a coalition of southern "dixicrates" and urban voters. When Bush Jr. won, he built a coalition of religious conservatives and global policy hawks.

Trump has done the same thing... except Trump's coalition is composed of Bigots (those that are openly racist and sexist) and the gullible/foolish (i.e. those who believed Trump would "make american great again", who would bring back jobs and improve health care even though he gave no plans to do either of those..)

I almost see Trump as a Forest Gump type character... not particularly intelligent and significantly flawed, but managed to be successful just through dumb luck. Consider:

- He is rich, but he benefited sigificantly from wealth he obtained from his family. (Had he been born into a middle class family he would probably be flipping burgers at McDonald's.)

- He won the primary, but against a field that had over a dozen candidates (making it easy for him to stand out). Had the republicans started out with fewer candidates, they probably would have had an easier time building their opposition to Trump around a single candidate

- He won the election, but he was against 1) A democrat that had been constantly attacked for years by the republicans, 2) was helped by both Russian interference and an FBI director who's actions were questionable, And despite that, he still lost the popular vote but still won because of the way the electoral college works. Change any of those factors and Trump may have lost

Now I'm not saying Hillary was a perfect candidate. If I were to blame the Democrats for anything, I'd say their biggest fault was not committing enough resources to certain states that they assumed they had locked up but where their support was not as strong as expected. (Places like Michigan, where Trump won by a very small margin. Had the Dems ran a few more ads there, visited the state more often, etc. perhaps they may have won it.)

Edited March 24, 2017 by segnosaur
Fix to tags

[taxme]

2 hours ago, segnosaur said:

 

 

Correction... The republicans managed to falsely convince people that Hillary was corrupt/lying.

If you look at politifact, she does have a few lies/falsehoods given (which is  understandable... you can't live for decades under a political microscope without having a few problems uncovered). But compared to other politicians (and especially Trump), the number of lies/falsehoods given is quite low. Yet somehow Trump and the republicans managed to get the "Hillary=liar" argument to stick.

So they are replacing left-wing "victimhood" with Trump-style "Its the mexican rapist/muslim's fault". Some may not consider that to be a sigificant improvement.

 

Errr.. not likely. Things happen. There doesn't have to be some master conspiracy at play to explain what's happening in the world. You just need a bunch of people who have different political, religious and economic ideas and their inevitable conflicts will cause the type of chaos we see now.

As for why Trump was elected:

When Bill Clinton won, he managed to build a coalition of southern "dixicrates" and urban voters. When Bush Jr. won, he built a coalition of religious conservatives and global policy hawks.

Trump has done the same thing... except Trump's coalition is composed of Bigots (those that are openly racist and sexist) and the gullible/foolish (i.e. those who believed Trump would "make american great again", who would bring back jobs and improve health care even though he gave no plans to do either of those..)

I almost see Trump as a Forest Gump type character... not particularly intelligent and significantly flawed, but managed to be successful just through dumb luck. Consider:

- He is rich, but he benefited sigificantly from wealth he obtained from his family. (Had he been born into a middle class family he would probably be flipping burgers at McDonald's.)

- He won the primary, but against a field that had over a dozen candidates (making it easy for him to stand out). Had the republicans started out with fewer candidates, they probably would have had an easier time building their opposition to Trump around a single candidate

- He won the election, but he was against 1) A democrat that had been constantly attacked for years by the republicans, 2) was helped by both Russian interference and an FBI director who's actions were questionable, And despite that, he still lost the popular vote but still won because of the way the electoral college works. Change any of those factors and Trump may have lost

Now I'm not saying Hillary was a perfect candidate. If I were to blame the Democrats for anything, I'd say their biggest fault was not committing enough resources to certain states that they assumed they had locked up but where their support was not as strong as expected. (Places like Michigan, where Trump won by a very small margin. Had the Dems ran a few more ads there, visited the state more often, etc. perhaps they may have won it.)

In what way is Trumps coalition made up of racists and sexist?

Are you saying everyone in his coalition is racist and sexist?

Trump was elected because he said things that needed to be said, and that is why he is president today. Hillary was a liar and wanted to keep the old status quo going of more poverty, drugs, wars, and working very hard to destroy America. She was a puppet on a string for the elite like David Rockerfeller who is now dead, and is sitting on the left side of satan. A great place for him. There is no perfect person on earth. But Trump sure has to be a lot better than what Hillary was. She would have been a disaster for America if she had become president. Hillary lost, and Trump won so live with it. I am quite contented to do so.  

[Topaz]

Sad for the American people who aren't going to have health care by the end of the year. Dems are blaming the Reps. but it really ALL of them. I think Trump would like to see a universal, like many countries have and I bet they could have it if they excluded  the rich but let the rich help pay for it.

[taxme]

14 minutes ago, Topaz said:

Sad for the American people who aren't going to have health care by the end of the year. Dems are blaming the Reps. but it really ALL of them. I think Trump would like to see a universal, like many countries have and I bet they could have it if they excluded  the rich but let the rich help pay for it.

Why don't they all just drop the waste of time bull crap, and dump the whole Obamacare thing, and just say to the American people go visit your doctor for whatever reason or go have your surgery, and then send the government the bill. Voila, all is then clear and transparent. Sounds easy enough to me. But I guess that is just me. I like to make things nice and easy and simple in my life. Works for me. 

[segnosaur]

9 minutes ago, Topaz said:

Sad for the American people who aren't going to have health care by the end of the year.

It is. But for me, its a little bit of a consolation to know that the people most likely to be harmed by Trump's actions on health care are the people who voted for him.

For some reason, seeing people harmed by their own stupidity makes me smile.

But on the other hand, at least he's going to keep out those evil Muslims. Well, except the problem is many medical personnel working in rural areas (i.e. in areas that supported Trump) are actually from places affected by the Muslim ban, making it harder for Trump supporters to find doctors.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2016/12/27/these-coal-country-voters-backed-trump-now-theyre-worried-about-losing-obamacare/?utm_term=.ce88e7f7068d

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2017/03/14/obamacare-repeal-could-hurt-rural-areas-key-trump-constituency/f3ZYjshzc2lwb9qd1xqwzO/story.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/02/us-doctors-trump-travel-ban-health

Dems are blaming the Reps. but it really ALL of them.

No, its the republicans. From start to finish, its them. They were the ones who basically fought against Obamacare when it was first introduced. They are the ones who voted multiple times to repeal Obamacare with no plan for a replacement. They are the ones who nominated (and later supported) Trump, a man who also had no plans for health care, instead giving empty promises. (And later said "Nobody knew health care would be so hard".)

Now MAYBE the plan isn't perfect and the Dems could have helped tinker with it to iron out some of the bugs. But kind of hard to do when the only thing on the Republican's agenda is "Repeal".

I think Trump would like to see a universal

...

What Trump wants is irrelevant, because he's an incompetent bigoted buffoon and has no idea how to get anything useful done.

 

[bush_cheney2004]

6 minutes ago, segnosaur said:

...What Trump wants is irrelevant, because he's an incompetent bigoted buffoon and has no idea how to get anything useful done.
 

 

That's not what the Canadian prime minister is saying today after Trump approved Keystone XL:

Quote

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau welcomed the news in a scrum with reporters Friday, saying the government is "very pleased with the announcement coming out of the United States. We have long known that getting our resources to market in safe and responsible ways is important [for] Canadian jobs, for Canadian economic growth."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keystone-xl-ok-state-department-transcanada-1.4039176

 

Because we all know how useful bigoted buffoons can be...for Canada.

[Cum Laude]

6 hours ago, segnosaur said:

 

 

Correction... The republicans managed to falsely convince people that Hillary was corrupt/lying.

If you look at politifact, she does have a few lies/falsehoods given (which is  understandable... you can't live for decades under a political microscope without having a few problems uncovered). But compared to other politicians (and especially Trump), the number of lies/falsehoods given is quite low. Yet somehow Trump and the republicans managed to get the "Hillary=liar" argument to stick.

So they are replacing left-wing "victimhood" with Trump-style "Its the mexican rapist/muslim's fault". Some may not consider that to be a sigificant improvement.

 

Errr.. not likely. Things happen. There doesn't have to be some master conspiracy at play to explain what's happening in the world. You just need a bunch of people who have different political, religious and economic ideas and their inevitable conflicts will cause the type of chaos we see now.

As for why Trump was elected:

When Bill Clinton won, he managed to build a coalition of southern "dixicrates" and urban voters. When Bush Jr. won, he built a coalition of religious conservatives and global policy hawks.

Trump has done the same thing... except Trump's coalition is composed of Bigots (those that are openly racist and sexist) and the gullible/foolish (i.e. those who believed Trump would "make american great again", who would bring back jobs and improve health care even though he gave no plans to do either of those..)

I almost see Trump as a Forest Gump type character... not particularly intelligent and significantly flawed, but managed to be successful just through dumb luck. Consider:

- He is rich, but he benefited sigificantly from wealth he obtained from his family. (Had he been born into a middle class family he would probably be flipping burgers at McDonald's.)

- He won the primary, but against a field that had over a dozen candidates (making it easy for him to stand out). Had the republicans started out with fewer candidates, they probably would have had an easier time building their opposition to Trump around a single candidate

- He won the election, but he was against 1) A democrat that had been constantly attacked for years by the republicans, 2) was helped by both Russian interference and an FBI director who's actions were questionable, And despite that, he still lost the popular vote but still won because of the way the electoral college works. Change any of those factors and Trump may have lost

Now I'm not saying Hillary was a perfect candidate. If I were to blame the Democrats for anything, I'd say their biggest fault was not committing enough resources to certain states that they assumed they had locked up but where their support was not as strong as expected. (Places like Michigan, where Trump won by a very small margin. Had the Dems ran a few more ads there, visited the state more often, etc. perhaps they may have won it.)

As usual, you underestimate the governing abilities of Mr. Trump, and more importantly, the abilities of a powerful intellectual center, which works for him.

The appearance of quotes around the word “wiretapping” in the Trump’s tweet shows that this tweet was not just thought through to the last detail, but also that the whole unit of that intellectual center have worked on it, the center which I hope Hillary is not capable to eavesdrop on.

The fact of presence of such center is clear from the elaboration of this tweet, and the fact that Clintonoids can’t control it is clear from the first reaction of the flying monkeys to this tweet.

Trump accused Obama of organizing the eavesdropping, which was ordered not by Obama, but by the Wicked Witch of the West, because only the status of the President acting as the accusation implies can really raise the status of the “wiretapping” case to the level of Watergate in which Hillary Clinton took a significant, if not the main and decisive role.

The task of this tweet was to neutralize the attempts of the Clintonoids to create a commission of the Congress or appoint a special prosecutor to investigate the relations between Trump’s election campaign and Russian intelligence, so there is just as much basis for setting up such a commission as there are grounds for setting up a special commission to investigate the new Watergate.

But over and above the task of this tweet was the final rout and cleansing not only of Bastinda, but of the whole organization of the flying monkeys.

Indeed, such an investigation will undoubtedly begin with the lower-level actors who are experienced and will immediately realize that they are threatened by a “cleanup” on the part of the customer.

Therefore, they will undoubtedly cooperate with Trump and the thread will lead to the real customer, and not to Obama.

That will allow Trump to raise the issue of the Hillary Clinton’s coup d’état, which happened on the day of Hillary Clinton’s “endorsement” by Obama immediately after speaking at 6 am with Bernie Sanders about the total falsification of the election results in California.

And for this it is only necessary to create an Independent Commission of the Congress to investigate the possible wiretapping of the candidate for President Trump, and then this commission will inevitably finish its business.

[H10]

19 hours ago, taxme said:

So, why has Trump not been arrested and charged for those "accusations" yet? Of course I know why but you obviously don't. 

Because the special prosecutor provision was abolished in the 1990s, meaning that only Trump could appoint a prosecutor who could try him,making him basically immune from prosecution while he is in office.

[taxme]

5 hours ago, hernanday said:

Because the special prosecutor provision was abolished in the 1990s, meaning that only Trump could appoint a prosecutor who could try him,making him basically immune from prosecution while he is in office.

Geez, I guess then that it also worked out alright for Obama and Hillary too, eh? Get over it. There is nothing anyone can find on Trump that can bring him down because there is nothing on Trump. All just liberal/democrat lies and dreams. But keep hoping but don't try holding your breath for too long. You could become deceased if you do.