Electile Dysfunction (Current students plz look!)

[rherold9]

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-protest-trump-20161109-story.html">http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-m ... story.html</a><!-- m -->

[Steve85]

This is what I wanted to see. They were talking about this a bit last night, that Trump was winning higher minority percentages than Romney. Compare the Race section with 2012.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur">http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... &smtyp=cur</a><!-- m -->

[rherold9]

This is what I wanted to see. They were talking about this a bit last night, that Trump was winning higher minority percentages than Romney. Compare the Race section with 2012.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/election-exit-polls.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur">http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... &smtyp=cur</a><!-- m -->

Wow those stats if they are actually correct and correct sample are not surprising one bit.

[CaptainHenreh]

edit: doubletap

[CaptainHenreh]

I'm really starting to think you made this thread so you could feel superior to everyone by being a pedant about terms just to be right. Thank goodness for Papa Rex.

Can't or won't develop cogent counterpoint, slings insult instead. Oh, hast thou become what thou despise?

[G.Irish]

I think what would be even more telling is voter turnout. A lot of the urban areas in the big states like Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina voted Democratic again, but I suspect turnout was much lower meaning it couldn't outweigh the Republican votes in rural districts.

Hillary actually did one percentage point better than Obama with white voters but I think a lot more of them turned out this time for Trump. Hillary did worse than Obama in 2012 with women and did worse with blacks, latinos and asians. A lot of those votes didn't go to Trump though, it looks like they went 3rd party.

[rherold9]

Can't or won't develop cogent counterpoint, slings insult instead. Oh, hast thou become what thou despise?

Work must be slow today to be rustling so many jimmies? :bootyshake:

[CaptainHenreh]

Hillary did worse than Obama in 2012 with women and did worse with blacks, latinos and asians.

Jesus. This should tell you all you need to know about the election. It wasn't "yay trump" it was "#anyonebuther"

[G.Irish]

One can say no one is going to lose any rights, but :

A. Trump has said he will restrict travel of Muslims
B. Republican controlled state governments have passed anti-LGBT laws on more than one occasion. One of them being in the VP's state
C. Trump will appoint at least one Supreme Court judge. Trump has stated opposition to Roe v Wade and support for punishing women who get abortions, which is probably going to inform his SC pick.
D. The Republicans control 2 branches of government and are on their way to controlling a third.

Maybe none of those things will amount to anything but bottom line is President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress now has a blank check for the next 2 years. It would be naive to expect them not to use that to enact legislation that furthers their social agenda.

[CaptainHenreh]

Maybe none of those things will amount to anything but bottom line is President Trump and the Republican-controlled Congress now has a blank check for the next 2 years. It would be naive to expect them not to use that to enact legislation that furthers their social agenda.

Except for all of the political capital burned among the GOPers this election cycle, the non-filibuster proof majority, (meaning he can't appoint Hank Williams, Jr to the supreme court) midterms, and the full knowledge they must tread very carefully or lose their collective asses come midterms.

[HAULN-SS]

I remember that time the other party had a blank check, and pushed a social agenda of massive federal healthcare without a single vote from the other side.

Regards to C: Trump clarified he was talking about punishing doctors who perform out of bounds abortions..not the women themselves.

[G.Irish]

I remember that time the other party had a blank check, and pushed a social agenda of massive federal healthcare without a single vote from the other side.

Yes, even though the individual mandate started out as a Republican idea for universal healthcare, and Obama removed the public option in order to concede a bit to Republican wishes, not a single Republican voted for the ACA. Is that evidence that Democrats weren't willing to compromise, or is it evidence that the GOP was determined to defeat the bill at any cost?

Either way, the GOP now has the means to rescind it, and I fully expect them to.

Regards to C: Trump clarified he was talking about punishing doctors who perform out of bounds abortions..not the women themselves.

MATTHEWS: The churches make their moral judgments, but you’re running for President of the United States to become Chief Executive of the United States. Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no, as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/03/30/trump_some_form_of_punishment_for_women_if_abortion_becomes_illegal.html">http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/ ... legal.html</a><!-- m -->

[G.Irish]

Except for all of the political capital burned among the GOPers this election cycle, the non-filibuster proof majority, (meaning he can't appoint Hank Williams, Jr to the supreme court) midterms, and the full knowledge they must tread very carefully or lose their collective asses come midterms.

Even after shutting down the government twice, refusing to appoint a SC justice, and voting multiple times to rescind the ACA, Republicans in Congress have suffered zero consequences, and they won White House. They don't have to tread carefully at all.

[rherold9]

[CaptainHenreh]

They don't have to tread carefully at all.

[CaptainHenreh]

Also dis: <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cracked.com/blog/dont-panic/">http://www.cracked.com/blog/dont-panic/</a><!-- m -->

[rherold9]

I really want to know how Trump thinks this will work out well:

* FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205

* SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership

* THIRD, I will direct my Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator

American Energy & Infrastructure Act. Leverages public-private partnerships, and private investments through tax incentives, to spur $1 trillion in infrastructure investment over 10 years. It is revenue neutral.

* SIXTH, lift the Obama-Clinton roadblocks and allow vital energy infrastructure projects, like the Keystone Pipeline, to move forward

* FIFTH, I will lift the restrictions on the production of $50 trillion dollars' worth of job-producing American energy reserves, including shale, oil, natural gas and clean coal.

This is also interesting as Scalia is far from being a terrible choice by Obama:

SECOND, begin the process of selecting a replacement for Justice Scalia from one of the 20 judges on my list, who will uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States

Other than that it doesn't look terrible. I just don't get why he wants to pull money out of the UN climate to rebuild are water and envrinoment yet is all with the pipeline/oil gathering. Doesn't make sense lol. We will see what happens at the end of winter/spring time.

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368/here-is-what-donald-trump-wants-to-do-in-his-first-100-days?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202709">http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368 ... ent=202709</a><!-- m -->

<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/11/09/trumps-100-days-orig.cnn">http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/11 ... s-orig.cnn</a><!-- m -->

[ScottyB]

I just don't get why he wants to pull money out of the UN climate to rebuild are water and envrinoment yet is all with the pipeline/oil gathering.

"jobs", i guess. being able to still build municipal-level enviro projects while simultaneously allowing Big Oil to go full retard on our oil reserves.

[CaptainHenreh]

This is bold. I understand the logic behind all this, and it seems like he's holy shit maybe actually trying to shrink the size of government? Second and Third have no chance of passing but Fourth and Fif, and Sixth, oh please, please, that would be amazeballs.

* FIRST, propose a Constitutional Amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress;

* SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health);

* THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated;

* FOURTH, a 5 year-ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service;

* FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government;

* SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

[JPolen01]

I'm confused as to how anyone thinks term limits are ever going to happen. Do we really expect the people that thrive on a lifelong congressional terms are just going to give it up? In order for this to happen the Constitution would need to be amended. In order for the Constitution to be amended it requires an agreement by a two-thirds supermajority of Congress and then to be ratified by three-fourths of states (38 out of 50). Seems highly unlikely.