I never really got the expression "whiny liberal" that i have seen US commentators use, before this Trump ascension. Its like a persistent whine, not one like a whimpering of a small sick puppy that makes you want hold it and make it better but like a small spoilt child that doesn't get its own way and then has to tell everyone else about it.
American Politics Discussion Thread
9 of 32
Originally Posted by bingbong:
“I never really got the expression "whiny liberal" that i have seen US commentators use, before this Trump ascension. Its like a persistent whine, not one like a whimpering of a small sick puppy that makes you want hold it and make it better but like a small spoilt child that doesn't get its own way and then has to tell everyone else about it.”
“I never really got the expression "whiny liberal" that i have seen US commentators use, before this Trump ascension. Its like a persistent whine, not one like a whimpering of a small sick puppy that makes you want hold it and make it better but like a small spoilt child that doesn't get its own way and then has to tell everyone else about it.”
To be fair, conservatives were fairly voluble in their discontent during the Obama years (and the Clinton years before that). It's the tendency of the defeated side to have a good whinge when they lose. I think it's more intense this time because a) Trump was such a joke candidate and they can't believe he won, b) Hillary won the popular vote by such a wide margin, there's a real sense of resentment that the Republicans won and c) There is a genuine feeling (one I'm quite sympathetic to) that Trump is going to be such a catastrophically bad president that they are fearful about what's to come. You may disagree with the liberals, but it's not hard to see why they're so upset.
Originally Posted by Bob Paisley:
“To be fair, conservatives were fairly voluble in their discontent during the Obama years (and the Clinton years before that). It's the tendency of the defeated side to have a good whinge when they lose. I think it's more intense this time because a) Trump was such a joke candidate and they can't believe he won, b) Hillary won the popular vote by such a wide margin, there's a real sense of resentment that the Republicans won and c) There is a genuine feeling (one I'm quite sympathetic to) that Trump is going to be such a catastrophically bad president that they are fearful about what's to come. You may disagree with the liberals, but it's not hard to see why they're so upset.”
“To be fair, conservatives were fairly voluble in their discontent during the Obama years (and the Clinton years before that). It's the tendency of the defeated side to have a good whinge when they lose. I think it's more intense this time because a) Trump was such a joke candidate and they can't believe he won, b) Hillary won the popular vote by such a wide margin, there's a real sense of resentment that the Republicans won and c) There is a genuine feeling (one I'm quite sympathetic to) that Trump is going to be such a catastrophically bad president that they are fearful about what's to come. You may disagree with the liberals, but it's not hard to see why they're so upset.”
The thing is, that is quite understandable, but how many of these people would be outraged if it were the other way round, say Hillary was President elect, and Trumps supporters were saying she was not really the President, and were trying to fund ways to stop here from becoming President??
You only have to look I think it was at the last debate between Hillary and Trump, when she was asked would she accept the results of the election, and Trump came out with his "maybe, I will let you know" statement, there was outrage at his statement (and perhaps rightly so), but now look at was and is happening, you are having her side not accepting the result, and where is she? We haven't heard from her at all, she should be saying stop all of this nonsense, and accept the result of the election, but nope, nothing.
Originally Posted by bingbong:
“I never really got the expression "whiny liberal" that i have seen US commentators use, before this Trump ascension. Its like a persistent whine, not one like a whimpering of a small sick puppy that makes you want hold it and make it better but like a small spoilt child that doesn't get its own way and then has to tell everyone else about it.”
“I never really got the expression "whiny liberal" that i have seen US commentators use, before this Trump ascension. Its like a persistent whine, not one like a whimpering of a small sick puppy that makes you want hold it and make it better but like a small spoilt child that doesn't get its own way and then has to tell everyone else about it.”
You are a complete disgrace that has no idea what is going on with this country.
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“The thing is, that is quite understandable, but how many of these people would be outraged if it were the other way round, say Hillary was President elect, and Trumps supporters were saying she was not really the President, and were trying to fund ways to stop here from becoming President??
You only have to look I think it was at the last debate between Hillary and Trump, when she was asked would she accept the results of the election, and Trump came out with his "maybe, I will let you know" statement, there was outrage at his statement (and perhaps rightly so), but now look at was and is happening, you are having her side not accepting the result, and where is she? We haven't heard from her at all, she should be saying stop all of this nonsense, and accept the result of the election, but nope, nothing.”
“The thing is, that is quite understandable, but how many of these people would be outraged if it were the other way round, say Hillary was President elect, and Trumps supporters were saying she was not really the President, and were trying to fund ways to stop here from becoming President??
You only have to look I think it was at the last debate between Hillary and Trump, when she was asked would she accept the results of the election, and Trump came out with his "maybe, I will let you know" statement, there was outrage at his statement (and perhaps rightly so), but now look at was and is happening, you are having her side not accepting the result, and where is she? We haven't heard from her at all, she should be saying stop all of this nonsense, and accept the result of the election, but nope, nothing.”
I'm afraid this is just the way it is in America now. It's become such a deeply polarised place, the losing side whinges and gripes about the result. It's nothing new, though. The Republicans never accepted Bill Clinton as a 'legitimate' president. The Democrats hated George W Bush. The Republicans hated Obama (even questioning whether he was born in the US). The Democrats will hate Trump. It'll calm down a bit once he takes office but there will always be plenty of whining.
Originally Posted by MattXfactor:
“You are a complete disgrace that has no idea what is going on with this country.”
“You are a complete disgrace that has no idea what is going on with this country.”
Is this what people mean when they talk about irony?
Originally Posted by Bob Paisley:
“I'm afraid this is just the way it is in America now. It's become such a deeply polarised place, the losing side whinges and gripes about the result. It's nothing new, though. The Republicans never accepted Bill Clinton as a 'legitimate' president. The Democrats hated George W Bush. The Republicans hated Obama (even questioning whether he was born in the US). The Democrats will hate Trump. It'll calm down a bit once he takes office but there will always be plenty of whining.”
“I'm afraid this is just the way it is in America now. It's become such a deeply polarised place, the losing side whinges and gripes about the result. It's nothing new, though. The Republicans never accepted Bill Clinton as a 'legitimate' president. The Democrats hated George W Bush. The Republicans hated Obama (even questioning whether he was born in the US). The Democrats will hate Trump. It'll calm down a bit once he takes office but there will always be plenty of whining.”
I didn't followed this Birther movement thing all that closely, I know Trump was quite highly active in it, was there many more Republicans involved in it?
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“I didn't followed this Birther movement thing all that closely, I know Trump was quite highly active in it, was there many more Republicans involved in it?”
“I didn't followed this Birther movement thing all that closely, I know Trump was quite highly active in it, was there many more Republicans involved in it?”
As I remember it, the leadership of the party kept their distance, but benefited from some of the energy the controversy generated. It was more of a grassroots thing.
Originally Posted by bingbong:
“I never really got the expression "whiny liberal" that i have seen US commentators use, before this Trump ascension. Its like a persistent whine, not one like a whimpering of a small sick puppy that makes you want hold it and make it better but like a small spoilt child that doesn't get its own way and then has to tell everyone else about it.”
“I never really got the expression "whiny liberal" that i have seen US commentators use, before this Trump ascension. Its like a persistent whine, not one like a whimpering of a small sick puppy that makes you want hold it and make it better but like a small spoilt child that doesn't get its own way and then has to tell everyone else about it.”
Liberal is basically the new Commie for the right wing.
Originally Posted by Bob Paisley:
“I'm afraid this is just the way it is in America now. It's become such a deeply polarised place, the losing side whinges and gripes about the result. It's nothing new, though. The Republicans never accepted Bill Clinton as a 'legitimate' president. The Democrats hated George W Bush. The Republicans hated Obama (even questioning whether he was born in the US). The Democrats will hate Trump. It'll calm down a bit once he takes office but there will always be plenty of whining.”
“I'm afraid this is just the way it is in America now. It's become such a deeply polarised place, the losing side whinges and gripes about the result. It's nothing new, though. The Republicans never accepted Bill Clinton as a 'legitimate' president. The Democrats hated George W Bush. The Republicans hated Obama (even questioning whether he was born in the US). The Democrats will hate Trump. It'll calm down a bit once he takes office but there will always be plenty of whining.”
This is probably the first time that the losing side has
called for endless pointless recounts in states where there was a small but solid lead for one candidate
Sought to intimidate and harass electoral college voters for simply voting for the candidate their state voted for
Called for civil disobedience to disrupt the inauguration
Tried to claim the election result was illegitimate because some foreign government hacked the election and
Blamed everyone else for their loss except their own mistakes.
That is the difference - it's unprecedented in recent times.
its also probably the first time the winning side has claimed the election was rigged
that there were millions of illegal votes
that they would have won by more if they had tried
that they won by a landslide when it was something like 13th out of 18 in terms of victory margins since WW2
that have reneged on almost every promise they made to get elected on before they have even taken office
that there were millions of illegal votes
that they would have won by more if they had tried
that they won by a landslide when it was something like 13th out of 18 in terms of victory margins since WW2
that have reneged on almost every promise they made to get elected on before they have even taken office
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“called for endless pointless recounts in states where there was a small but solid lead for one candidate ”
“called for endless pointless recounts in states where there was a small but solid lead for one candidate ”
It was three (therefore considerably short of endless) and it was not the Democrats who called for the recounts, they supported them.
Quote:
“Sought to intimidate and harass electoral college voters for simply voting for the candidate their state voted for ”
“Sought to intimidate and harass electoral college voters for simply voting for the candidate their state voted for ”
The purpose of the electoral college is not just to simply rubber stamp what the state voted - but to consider if the person they voted for was appropriate for Command - in Chief. It was created for precisely the situation we are in now - where a person is voted in on a populous programme - but unsuited to the job.
Quote:
“Tried to claim the election result was illegitimate because some foreign government hacked the election and”
“Tried to claim the election result was illegitimate because some foreign government hacked the election and”
Or to ensure that a foreign government has not interfered with the result of the election, which is not the same thing.
Quote:
“That is the difference - it's unprecedented in recent times.”
“That is the difference - it's unprecedented in recent times.”
So is the FBI announcing an investigation into a leading candidate so close to the election and based on no evidence whatsoever. Trumps lead was not so great that such things could not make a difference.
Originally Posted by mimik1uk:
“its also probably the first time the winning side has claimed the election was rigged
that there were millions of illegal votes
that they would have won by more if they had tried
that they won by a landslide when it was something like 13th out of 18 in terms of victory margins since WW2
that have reneged on almost every promise they made to get elected on before they have even taken office”
“its also probably the first time the winning side has claimed the election was rigged
that there were millions of illegal votes
that they would have won by more if they had tried
that they won by a landslide when it was something like 13th out of 18 in terms of victory margins since WW2
that have reneged on almost every promise they made to get elected on before they have even taken office”
Not a fan of Trump then?
Hardly giving him s chance are you?'
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Not a fan of Trump then?
Hardly giving him s chance are you?'”
“Not a fan of Trump then?
Hardly giving him s chance are you?'”
is anything i have said wrong ?
how about discussing specifics rather than meaningless platitudes like "lets give him a chance" ?
i'm judging him on his hypocrisy, his flip flopping over promises he made and on the people he is appointing to his cabinet
what exactly are you basing "he might change" on ?
Originally Posted by MARTYM8:
“This is probably the first time that the losing side has
called for endless pointless recounts in states where there was a small but solid lead for one candidate
Sought to intimidate and harass electoral college voters for simply voting for the candidate their state voted for
Called for civil disobedience to disrupt the inauguration
Tried to claim the election result was illegitimate because some foreign government hacked the election and
Blamed everyone else for their loss except their own mistakes.
That is the difference - it's unprecedented in recent times.”
“This is probably the first time that the losing side has
called for endless pointless recounts in states where there was a small but solid lead for one candidate
Sought to intimidate and harass electoral college voters for simply voting for the candidate their state voted for
Called for civil disobedience to disrupt the inauguration
Tried to claim the election result was illegitimate because some foreign government hacked the election and
Blamed everyone else for their loss except their own mistakes.
That is the difference - it's unprecedented in recent times.”
Certain aspects are new since I don't think a foreign government has previously tried to 'hack' an election before, but everything else seems pretty familiar to me.
If you're trying to suggest that this is all happening because 'liberals' are simply sore losers, and in contrast stoical conservatives just suck it up and accept defeat with good grace if they lose, then I don't think you've been paying attention to the Republican party for much of the last twenty years.
I suppose it's possible this time it might have reached a new level of hysteria because Trump is a particularly horrifying election-winner for many, so the reaction is just that more intense. But the rest of it all seems pretty much par for the course. Maybe you just notice it more this time because you're more sympathetic to the winner?
Why is trump holding rallies with the faithful?
Why is trump keeping his personal security team?
Why is trump unwilling to have press talks, why do his supporters talk of lugenpresse?
Why has trump given up on trying to drain the swamp?
Why is trump keeping his personal security team?
Why is trump unwilling to have press talks, why do his supporters talk of lugenpresse?
Why has trump given up on trying to drain the swamp?
Apologies if this has already been posted but this map shows just how little of the US voted for Hillary. The democrats have a major problem. Their "message" simply does not resonate with ordinary Americans. And Labour have the same problem here. They need to have a major re-think of everything.
Originally Posted by Happ Hazzard:
“Apologies if this has already been posted but this map shows just how little of the US voted for Hillary.”
“Apologies if this has already been posted but this map shows just how little of the US voted for Hillary.”
The Democrat vote is mainly in the big cities. They are small in geographical terms but large in population terms.
Millions more people voted for Hillary than for Trump.
Originally Posted by Happ Hazzard:
“Apologies if this has already been posted but this map shows just how little of the US voted for Hillary. ”
“Apologies if this has already been posted but this map shows just how little of the US voted for Hillary. ”
And yet she got 3 million more votes than he did. It's a paradox.
Quote:
“democrats have a major problem. Their "message" simply does not resonate with ordinary Americans. And Labour have the same problem here. They need to have a major re-think of everything.”
“democrats have a major problem. Their "message" simply does not resonate with ordinary Americans. And Labour have the same problem here. They need to have a major re-think of everything.”
And by "major re-think of everything", you presumably mean that they should lie at every opportunity, use twitter like a not especially bright seven-year-old might, make countless promises they cannot and will not keep, deny science, endorse multiple conspiracy theories... did I miss something?
Yes but in most areas of the US, more people voted for Trump. The Democrats need to have appeal beyond big cities if they want to get into power. It doesn't matter how many people vote for them in California and the North East if they can't get votes in "flyover country".
I guess they're all basically rhetorical, but I'll give them a shot!
Because the minute he starts governing, he has to stop 'campaigning', so he's hanging onto these occasions of uncritical adoration for as long as he possibly can. Actually, Trevor Noah delivered an amazing piece recently about the 'truth bombs' Trump is delivering at these rallies. He's literally holding his hands up about all of his slogans 'lock her up', 'drain the swamp', admitting that he didn't care about them but they 'played well' before the election, but he has no interest in continuing his pre-election rhetoric. You can actually see the crowds behind him deflating and getting slightly annoyed as he continues his streams of conscious speeches!
Oh boy, this is a deeply dodgy one, isn't it?! It speaks of a massively paranoid man - who's not even started the most basic preparations for moving to DC, and he also seems perfectly content paralysing part of one of the busiest parts of NYC, using New York's budget to furnish him with extra security - staffed by NYC cops, and not the secret service. Having a security team that won't acquiesce completely with the will of the protectee (given the SS have specific protocols that they follow) is clearly too much bother for Trump, who would prefer a group of people who say 'how high?' when he says 'jump'!
It prevents him having to answer questions about policies for as long as possible. His team are working very hard to establish a 'new normal' where the press won't have unfettered access to him, as has been the case for countless presidents before him. BTW, it seems that Trump Tower allows for him to remain hidden from view, and he plans to continue away from press view for as long as he can.
Plus, let's be utterly frank here, the fact that 'lugenpresse' is a word being used is because the nazis (oops I mean 'alt-right' - that's what their rebrand calls them, isn't it?) have always used this disparaging term to demonise the people reporting on their actions and attitudes. It's not an accident that the Nazi party in the 1930's adopted this term to discredit those reporting on their atrocities, and it's no accident now that Trump supporters scream the term at the press pens, even after they won the election!
Easy - he IS the swamp! And he's planning on filling it with his cronies and sycophants - no swamp draining here, nothing to see, move on!!!
Originally Posted by Dotheboyshall:
“Why is trump holding rallies with the faithful?”
“Why is trump holding rallies with the faithful?”
Because the minute he starts governing, he has to stop 'campaigning', so he's hanging onto these occasions of uncritical adoration for as long as he possibly can. Actually, Trevor Noah delivered an amazing piece recently about the 'truth bombs' Trump is delivering at these rallies. He's literally holding his hands up about all of his slogans 'lock her up', 'drain the swamp', admitting that he didn't care about them but they 'played well' before the election, but he has no interest in continuing his pre-election rhetoric. You can actually see the crowds behind him deflating and getting slightly annoyed as he continues his streams of conscious speeches!
Quote:
“Why is trump keeping his personal security team?”
“Why is trump keeping his personal security team?”
Oh boy, this is a deeply dodgy one, isn't it?! It speaks of a massively paranoid man - who's not even started the most basic preparations for moving to DC, and he also seems perfectly content paralysing part of one of the busiest parts of NYC, using New York's budget to furnish him with extra security - staffed by NYC cops, and not the secret service. Having a security team that won't acquiesce completely with the will of the protectee (given the SS have specific protocols that they follow) is clearly too much bother for Trump, who would prefer a group of people who say 'how high?' when he says 'jump'!
Quote:
“Why is trump unwilling to have press talks, why do his supporters talk of lugenpresse?”
“Why is trump unwilling to have press talks, why do his supporters talk of lugenpresse?”
It prevents him having to answer questions about policies for as long as possible. His team are working very hard to establish a 'new normal' where the press won't have unfettered access to him, as has been the case for countless presidents before him. BTW, it seems that Trump Tower allows for him to remain hidden from view, and he plans to continue away from press view for as long as he can.
Plus, let's be utterly frank here, the fact that 'lugenpresse' is a word being used is because the nazis (oops I mean 'alt-right' - that's what their rebrand calls them, isn't it?) have always used this disparaging term to demonise the people reporting on their actions and attitudes. It's not an accident that the Nazi party in the 1930's adopted this term to discredit those reporting on their atrocities, and it's no accident now that Trump supporters scream the term at the press pens, even after they won the election!
Quote:
“Why has trump given up on trying to drain the swamp?”
“Why has trump given up on trying to drain the swamp?”
Easy - he IS the swamp! And he's planning on filling it with his cronies and sycophants - no swamp draining here, nothing to see, move on!!!
Originally Posted by njp:
“And yet she got 3 million more votes than he did. It's a paradox.
And by "major re-think of everything", you presumably mean that they should lie at every opportunity, use twitter like a not especially bright seven-year-old might, make countless promises they cannot and will not keep, deny science, endorse multiple conspiracy theories... did I miss something?”
“And yet she got 3 million more votes than he did. It's a paradox.
And by "major re-think of everything", you presumably mean that they should lie at every opportunity, use twitter like a not especially bright seven-year-old might, make countless promises they cannot and will not keep, deny science, endorse multiple conspiracy theories... did I miss something?”
No, but they should listen to what people want the government to do. Stop telling people, and start listening to people, and not just rely on people voting for them because they aren't the other guys.
Originally Posted by Happ Hazzard:
“Yes but in most areas of the US, more people voted for Trump. The Democrats need to have appeal beyond big cities if they want to get into power. It doesn't matter how many people vote for them in California and the North East if they can't get votes in "flyover country".”
“Yes but in most areas of the US, more people voted for Trump. The Democrats need to have appeal beyond big cities if they want to get into power. It doesn't matter how many people vote for them in California and the North East if they can't get votes in "flyover country".”
That's because of the electoral college distortion. The college numbers need to be revised so as to be proportional to each state's current population, or the college abandoned as it is no longer a sensible concept. Unfortunately that won't happen all the time someone wins because of the college.
Originally Posted by Happ Hazzard:
“Apologies if this has already been posted but this map shows just how little of the US voted for Hillary. The democrats have a major problem. Their "message" simply does not resonate with ordinary Americans. And Labour have the same problem here. They need to have a major re-think of everything.”
“Apologies if this has already been posted but this map shows just how little of the US voted for Hillary. The democrats have a major problem. Their "message" simply does not resonate with ordinary Americans. And Labour have the same problem here. They need to have a major re-think of everything.”
Yeah, the use of maps like this, to make the sort of point you are making, is particularly daft. It's people who vote, not tracts of land. And a lot more people voted for Hillary than Trump. Firstly, due to the winner-takes-all nature of the electoral college, these things are confusing. You'd think, looking at the states on these maps, coloured red or blue, that no one voted Republican in a blue state and vice versa, when in fact plenty of people did. Also, a lot of Republican states are sparsely populated. They may be big geographically, but they're practically empty when it comes to people. Here's a series of maps that more accurately reflect America's voting...
http://uk.businessinsider.com/2016-e...oral-college-5
Originally Posted by Bob Paisley:
“Yeah, the use of maps like this, to make the sort of point you are making, is particularly daft. It's people who vote, not tracts of land.”
“Yeah, the use of maps like this, to make the sort of point you are making, is particularly daft. It's people who vote, not tracts of land.”
Very succinct!
9 of 32
