And now will be the Trump-apocalypse ...

Now I'm waiting for see Hillary Clinton in jail,the ku klu klan that march on washington and the building of the wall on the mexican border.

Do you think Trump will have the ball to do all the things that promised ?
I think no,however this comedician Maurizio Crozza made a trump portrait 7 mounths ago that is funny even you dont speak italian.

I think he will help the country create jobs. That promise he will keep. I think we are not a country without a border. Hey Mexico has a border.

If the FBI wants to press charges on Hillary or bill or Chelsea he won't stand in the way. He won't initiate it.

The person who were friends of a guy in the Kkk was Hillary not trump.

I think Hillary could have saved the life of her "friend" in Benghazi she did not have the ball to do it to use your word.

Trump was the right choice. Proud of this country for not letting one of the most corrupt politicians become president.

This couldn't have been posted in the already existing Trump thread?

Furio, keep in mind that the federal government is currently funded through a Continuing Resolution, but only through early December. Work on an FY 2017 budget should renew shortly now that the election is over. If such a budget is passed, it is unlikely to contain any of President-elect Trump's budget priorities.

Also keep in mind that Democrats gained another Senate seat. Combined with the 2 independent Senators who caucus with the Democrats, they have 49 of the Senate's 100 seats. That will make it difficult for Republicans to add any Trump-inspired budget items.

Noone knows what it's like to be President until they are President. It's only then that they realize the enormous challenge it is to govern effectively. Party affiliation is no guarantee of Presidential legislative success.

From a European perspective I think this could be good for the USA. Believe me you don't want to go down the road we went.

It's not good in Europe anymore, we are enduring an illegal immigration crisis which is creating incredible strife and division in society. Countries like France are on the verge of voting Far Right.

People have had enough, they are tired of their legitimate fears and concerns being ignored by politicians. The EU an overbearing undemocratic Union is beginning to shows signs of this strain. It's not inconceivable that the entire experiment could fall apart in the next decade.

I really think there is no far right here in the US except for the very rich. There is just right and the opposite far left. Far right was invented by the far left.

It used to be it was just left and right both were moderate. Working class was most moderate democrats. The far left democrates don't care about the working class.

We had moderate democrates in office they were ousted out by the far left.

This is a whole new ball game. Republicans won because of moderate democrats the workers losing their jobs. Plus the far left does not care about things like religion. Unfortunely for the extreme left the moderate democrates do.

The normal Latino people and the normal black families do and they care about illegals in the country. Latinos had to wait years to get here legally.

I said this before the average white guy, the average Latino and the average black,guy are basicly all the same. They want to do good for themselves and for their families.

The far left all they want is destroy this country.

Trump already started choosing members of his inner circle. He will be a great president. Its about time.

In Europe the political spectrum is different. For them, Communists are Left-wing and the socialists are Center-Left. Anyone who criticizes the socialists are considered Far Right.

In the USA, the Far Right is the racist Right, and includes the KKK and Neo-Nazis, while most Republicans are Center-Right to Right. The Democrats consider themselves centrists, although it is really the old Kennedy Democrats who were centrists. Most Democrats today are Progressives on the Far Left and follow in the footsteps of the Frankfurt School and people like Herbert Marcuse and Saul Alinsky. All critics of Islamism are considered Far Right over in Europe, and they can even send people to prison for criticizing Islam. Very little freedom in Europe unless you don't say anything but what the Left wants you to say.

That might be true, but most working middle class people like myself don't see ourselves left, right, up or down. We just want good jobs and a fair shake to support our families no matter what the media or politicians label us as. That is why you saw a lot of people who voted for Obama, voted for Trump this year. Those that voted Obama just wanted change and they bought into it. Unfortunately, he didn't do anything to create more jobs and made health insurance premiums go up over 100 percent. They can only shove so much crap down the working middle class throats before they push back. We give a lot. Black Democrat President that might change America, all aboard we will give it a shot. All we got was another politician that promoted his liberal agenda with all the LBGT, and boys using girls bathrooms. And honestly if he had just focused 25 percent on the jobs and economy of the U.S. most working class people wouldn't have gave a damn. Instead Obama put liberal agenda priorities head above shoulders over creating jobs. Well, this is what happens when we push back. Trump as President, Republican majority in the House and Senate. Hell my stock I invested in Caterpillar in 401k went up from 84 to 93 dollars so I gained a nice 5 figures. I'm happy with Trump already. This week we've worked the first Sunday we've worked in 6 years. It won't take long for all industries across America to reap the affect of the Trump presidency.

No, you didn't see that. Because it didn't happen.

Also, Trump didn't even get as many votes as Romney or McCain.

Yes it did. Elliot County KY. A county Obama won twice and Republican leader Mitch McConnel-R KY never won even once in his 31 years in the Senate. Yet, Elliot county went Trump by a landslide. 70 percent backed Trump in a county Obama won twice.Link....................http://www.abcfoxmontana.com/story/33696641/trump-country-democratic-elliott-county-ky-by-23-points

So, in one county, in the entire country, that happened.

Consider my point standing.

No, you said it didn't happen. I just proved that it did. Elliot County was a microcosm of what happened. Trump as President-Elect proves my point of people that voted Obama last 2 times voted for Trump. That being said, explain how in 2012 Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida all went to Obama, but in 2016 they all went to Trump. The white rural racists come out in force? Please explain?? No need. People in these states voted for Obama in 2012 and went to Trump in 2016. But if you want to give it a shot bud go ahead.

You proved that it happened in one single county, after implying it happened nation wide or something.

The turnout for Trump was weak.

Not to mention Hillary slaughtered him in the popular vote.

So weak it got him elected??Bahahahaha.

Just for the sake of argument here is a map of counties that went from Dem to Rep in this election. A lot more than one. Rebuttal if you have one................Link........http://www.cnbc.com/heres-a-map-of-the-us-counties-that-flipped-to-trump-from-democrats/

Yes, so weak it got him elected, for better or worse. (Clearly worse)

This was no convincing victory, or mandate. As I already said, Trump could not even get as many votes as "low energy loosers" like John McCain and Mitt Romney. There were enough swing states with a 100k or less difference to put Hillary over the top had they gone the other way. Hillary could end up winning the popular vote by 2 million when they're done counting, they're saying.

Trump and his supporters would be foolish to expect the nation's undivided loyalty. That's not happening. Trump is the president on paper. Hillary's the peoples' president.

No response to my link above. I named Elliot County Ky and you said only 1 county. I responded with a map of all the counties in the U.S. and no response at all? Crickets????

Oh yeah, I'm sorry. I forgot. Your link doesn't prove the people who voted for Trump in those districts voted for Obama in '08 or '12. I think this whole thing about Obama voters going Trump is just something you wish to believe, that has little to no basis.

Sorry, but my computer's java script must be malfunctioning. I haven't gotten a singe link to back up your sources. You know credible news agencies have to show sources right? Otherwise is all just conjecture and their own views pressed upon the public. Please post your sources again just in case my computer has a glitch.

The Basis is Trump won those 5 states that Obama won in 2012. Still waiting for you to explain that phenomenon. Crickets?????

Actually I think it has a little basis. 5 people I talked to who voted for Trump, had also voted for Obama his first time, two of those voted for Barack twice. Only in my area, and the numbers are low, yes, but it does show there is some basis for that, but it is also the other way as well, one woman voted Republican her whole life and voted for Hillary, a guy voted for McCain and Romney, but voted for Hillary.

What would you like to see my sources in regards to, Yates?

That was a fair assessment. I don't have blinders on. I would agree that some that voted for McCain/Romney voted for Hillary this year. That is a valid point.

Anything you have. Show us your strongest source to support your opinion.

I'm not sure if there is even a way to determine exactly who each individual person voted for in each election, except for going by their word. It's all kind of an irrelevant argument, anyway. Either way, it's not provable. What we do know is that Trump got less votes than both Romney and McCain. His turnout was weak. "low energy", as he would describe it. He lost the popular vote by a lot. Certainly not a mandate by any means.

For which specific point, yates? I've made several. Point out a specific argument I've made (that I've declared as fact), and I'll provide my source.

I provided 2 links to back up my statement that you said were false. Provide links to say my statement and the links I have provided are indeed false for starters.

Well it's been fun to see the establishment's candidate go down in flames and watch the media snobs surprised reaction but to get realistic here even if Trump somehow did half of what he says he will do, our economy will not be much better off.

We're still due for a severe recession, and the timing for that is highly dependent on what the federal reserve decides to do with interest rates. How much influence will Trump have over what the Fed does is unknown. the Fed is supposed to be independent. And even if he does have any influence, there's no telling what he wants, as he's given mixed signals about the Fed and it's low interest rate policy, claiming they're being very political yet he's also said he likes low rates and would take advantage of them. Which indicates that he's ready to increase spending.

He's also promising to increase spending on defense and also domestic type spending to "create jobs" all while promising to cut taxes. Not good for our future.

All the trade deal talk and the protectionism isn't going to fix the the damage done by the Fed and may very well just do more harm. Deporting illegal immigrants will also have very little effect.

yates, your links didn't prove your point. Probably because your argument isn't even provable. There's no way to determine who anyone voted for without them saying so, which of course is something they could lie about anyway. All you've determined is that districts that went to Obama previously went to Trump this time around. That doesn't prove that any one single person voted for Obama then Trump.

I'll say it again. This turnout was no statement of any kind. Trump got less votes than the previous two Republican candidates. Did Romney make a statement? Did McCain? Because they got more votes when they ran then Donald Trump did. Trump also lost the popular vote. By 2 million possibly, as they're still counting. Trump's turnout was weak. "low energy", to use his term. lol.

yates, do you seriously expect him to respond to evidence? C'mon, man.

Interesting that Trump is increasing defense spending, considering someone in here was saying Trump was anti-war. The buyer's remorse from anti-war libertarians has to be kicking in about now. I posted his short list for cabinet appointments, full of Wall Street people and Bush cronies. Draining the swamp? He just shoved a plug in the drain, and turned the same murky water back on.

Faithful 1 and Yates will post any irrelevant link and try to pass it off as evidence. I suppose they think by just using the url tags that somehow it puts an end to the argument.

Faithful 1's argument was that the media is liberal. This is an oft repeated myth by the right, never been proven with anything more substantial than anecdotal evidence. A bunch of right wingers watching the NBC Nightly news, hitting pause, then yelling, "Did you hear that? Right there! He said Bush never found the weapons of mass destruction. LIBERAL!". They'll post a link to some article written by one of these guys, and boom, evidence that the media is liberal. Hilarious. Never mind the fact that the media is almost entirely owned and increasingly consolidated by corporations. Not exactly a liberal bunch.

Yates posted evidence that people who voted for Trump previously voted for Obama, even though there is absolutely no way to prove this.

He's always said he wanted to increase defense spending.
Increasing defense spending doesn't necessarily mean you want war, and while I don't think he's "anti war", he's just less pro war than Hillary. She's obviously very much an interventionist, as her record proves and it's why many neo cons were behind her.
True, there's also neo cons coopting Trump's administration too. They're not going to go away that easily. They're hedging their bets, In hopes to influence policy.

So here we have an actual indicator that Trump is certainly for war, by increasing defense spending (talk about a department that's starved for cash!), yet, this doesn't "necessarily" mean his pro war...

But the indicators that Hillary is pro war, such as her record, are enough to make the claim that she's the pro war interventionist between these two!

Got it.

Facts and logic are clearly not your strong point.

Here's Oak's argument for the non-existence of media bias:

1. Media bias does not exist.
2. I have not seen evidence for media bias.
3. Therefore, media bias does not exist.

The hidden assumption is that he hasn't seen media bias because he avoids reading documentation of its existence.

This is like saying
1. China does not exist.
2. I have never been to China.
3. Therefore it doesn't exist.

Beautiful textbook examples of circular reasoning.

SIDENOTE: Trump could build up the military while being anti-war by believing in "peace through strength." It's like the idea that it's better to have the weapons available and not need them rather than needing them and not having them.

Whoa whoa whoa...back up just a second.

You made the claim that the media is liberal. The burden is on YOU to prove that, not on me to disprove it. The only evidence you've presented is in the form of hearsay. Opinions. Opinions by people who believe the media is liberal. This is not evidence of anything. All that's been determined in this discussion is that some people believe the media is liberal, and you're one of them. None of you has a shred of proof that it is.

Wanting to spend more on defense isn't the same as wanting to attack another country. I don't know of any more simple way to put it. He may turn out to be just as bad as Hillary though. Campaign talk is campaign talk.

I'm 100% against an increase in spending on defense. But there is a difference.

Yea Hillary's record is evidence she's an interventionist and is pro-war.

"peace through strength"

One of the classic neocon slogans.

Hillary the neocon might have lost, but neoconservatism clearly didn't, contrary to someone's claims here.

SCG,

Trying to argue that increasing defense spending doesn't equate to being pro war isn't an easy sell, is it? I don't envy you. Must be uncomfortable twisting up like a pretzel.

It's such a simple concept, I'm sure a 5 year old could understand.

Media usually has a bias agenda. Most of the media having a liberal agenda? I don't buy it.

Ah, come on, SCG. Be a good sport. You spent the last 6 months telling us Hillary was the neo-con in this election. Turns out Trump's short list of cabinet appointments is filled with neo-con Bush cronies, and he's increasing defense spending. When he "bombs the shit out of ISIS" his first day in office, probably resulting in 10 times the civilian casualties of Shock and Awe. What will you say then? He was just testing the weapons?

None of that is a surprise. He's been talking about bombing ISIS. He does have neo cons around him. None of this is news. But it's very telling he didn't have full support from
The neo cons. Not from the most evil William Kristol and his circle. Not from the Bush family.
Hillary was just the first choice, she's a sure thing for these people. Trump ran as a populist so talking tough on ISIS helped him. He just doesn't sound interested in being enemies with Russia, and neo cons want to be enemies with almost everyone but Isreal.
It's all a matter of degrees.

Increasing defense spending still doesn't necessarily equal war. Very simple concept.

Because defense is an area that's just starved for cash...

It's simple enough to call Hillary a neo-con based on her record, so it's simple enough to call Trump one based on what we know about him too. They're both neocons. Every president for the rest of our lives will be.

Why do you keep saying that? I never said it was starved for cash. But every bureaucracy will push for more funding. It's the nature of bureaucracy. The military is part of the government. Plus all the companies that profit off making weapons.
It bothers a lot of neo cons that Trump doesn't want to be enemies with Russia. But they are coopting his administration. Something to keep an eye on.

The military is already well funded. The reason it needs additional finding is...voila...so we can continue the meaningless wars we're in now. Perhaps add another one or two. So, the fact that Trump is feeding this beast with additional funding is yet another indication he's as much of a war hawk as anyone, and this is aside from the Bush cronies on his short list for cabinet positions. Anyone who said Trump was an anti-war candidate was either incredibly naive, or playing games.

Nope. He may well turn out to be for war but increasing spending on defense doesn't mean you're for war. That's logically incorrect. Dumping money into a
bureaucracy Just means you want to feed it. Having a strong defense doesn't mean you have to go and attack others.

The military is well funded. There is no reason for an increase, other than to maintain a war that already has no objective or clear mission, or perhaps even start another. To fund the current war is to be a neo-con, by default. No way around it.

You only say that because you have no idea how government bureaucracy works.

I could say I haven't seen much evidence that you know how anything in government works, but there's no need to make this personal. You said Trump was less of a neo hawk than Hillary, and aside from talking out of the side of his mouth during the campaign (that you obviously fell for), there's no indication of it. He wants to increase spending to continue Bush's war. His short list for cabinet appointments is covered with neo-con Bush cronies. You were wrong. It's that simple .

I fell for it so much that I didn't support or vote for him. You see, people like you is why he was elected. Instead of focusing on legitimate reasons as to why he shouldn't be elected, you instead chose to attack him for the most silly reasons to fear monger and cause hysteria. And many people saw right through it. Your side lost credibility.

Secondly, I never believed he was completely anti war. He's just less of an interventionist than Hillary. It's that simple. If Trump suddenly decides to threaten Russia militarily then we can safely say he's becoming as bad as Hillary.

As for increasing defense spending and how you interpret it, there's no way you will ever concede a single thing. Increasing spending doesn't mean" lets attack even more countries." Although it potentially could happen.
I suppose the only good thing about your reaction and of others on the Left is that maybe, just maybe, the anti war Left will suddenly come back alive like they did during The Bush years. We know if Hillary was in office we wouldn't hear a peep from the so called anti war Left as she warmongers for four to eight years straight.

http://loudwire.com/nofxs-fat-wreck-chords-selling-not-my-f-ing-president-shirts/



"Racist rednecks".

This is the kind of stupidity we are dealing with from people opposing Trump's election.

come back ivy, and give them all HELL!!

My argument was not every single Obama voter voted Trump this year. My argument was that quite a few people who voted for Obama in 2012, voted for Trump in 2016. That is a fact.

u mean corrupt like the Kennedys...bush...Reagan? you're proud this country elected a billionaire that hasn't paid taxes n 10yrs, is a total bigot and spews nothing but hate? u want a president that will make other countries wanna blow us off the map

http://www.hannity.com/articles/hanpr-election-493995/donald-trump-saves-1000-jobs-15345024/

He is not even president and he saved 1000 jobs. Furthermore, the markets also reacted favorable to Trump.

Trump did not save those jobs. You'll never know that getting your news from places like Hannity, however.

Saving jobs and saving the economy are two very different things. Short term markets reactions are irrelevant in the big picture. All the damage done of years of QE from
The Fed has likely done an enormous amount of damage and there's no smooth way out of the hole they've dug us in. It's not Trump's fault, but I see no way he can avoid it. Postpone it like Obama did, maybe. But he isn't fixing it with trade deals. That's for sure.

Trump "saved" those jobs by having Pence (Indiana governor, in case anyone forgot) strike a deal with Carrier that will have the Indiana tax payers subsidize the labor cost of keeping the jobs here.

If that sort of tax payer subsidization of jobs sounds familiar to you, it's called socialism. Carrier jobs are basically government jobs now. Trump might not be so bad after all. I told you guys he resembled Castro more than any president ever. I just meant his personality. His economic policies might, too.

I agree with you that the Fed has done a lot of damage & that
Trump can't fix it all but he will steer the economy back on the right track. Trump never said that he was a protectionist when it comes to trade. What he said is that he wants to renegotiate trade deals to be fair. He wants fair bi-lateral deals. All I know is that the present administration had no clue how to run a country and that Hillary was going to continue on the same path.

So far he's only used socialism to save jobs. Let's see if this trend continues. Fidel's idea lives on.

That is called an offer you can't refuse.

It's called giving a company tax payer money to prevent them from leaving, enough to reimburse them for what they'd lose in labor cost. Carrier sacrifices nothing. It was Carrier that made the offer Trump couldn't refuse. Trump, Pence, and the Indiana tax payers got played.

You know how I know Oak can't be more then 15 yrs old.

I notice the same thing on some of the soccer sites I am on.

Kids have to answer every post on threads they are on. It is the sign of a kid.

yes, oak, but the public perception is that he's saving jobs from leaving the country........ and that can't do anything but benefit him. [trump]

Everyone thought Rick Perry was a good governor because he made Texas business friendly by lowering taxes for people bring their business to Texas.

Trump is getting businesses to stay in the US. Also for investors to open up new businesses here in the US.

That puts US citizens back to work.

He is going to go down as a great president for the working man.

There was a soccer product that was short lived here in the US.

I am seriously thinking of buying the rights to it and manufacturing it here in the US.

Very cheap to make and it is not really necessary for soccer players. But with the right promotion parents would buy it for their kids because they don't know it is not needed.

Because unless you played the game it seems like something they would need.

I will say it's not a helmet or a head band.

I agree, Binnnie, people are too uniformed to understand what Trump did with Carrier. We're seeing that here. If Obama did the same there would be an outrage. Trump turned Carrier into a government job. Oh well. In the long run, it works out for everyone. We're seeing that Trump's plan to be a successful Republican president is to govern as a Democrat.

yes, oak, he has a great opportunity to do good things, hopefully he will stop paul ryan and other reactionaries from gutting,S.S. medicare, and medicade, they seem intent on doing just that. if he can stop them from making drastic changes, he will become very, very popular.

Heck yeah. Before he even takes office, he turns Carrier AC into a government job. Not sure how fiscal conservatives in Indiana feel about the tax payer getting that tab, though.

Wonder why Obama didn't think of that in 8 years? And its more than likely Carrier's parent company United Technologies knows their biggest customer is the Pentagon and Trump put them in their place. Grabbed Carrier and United Technologies by the Pussy. Move to Mexico and put Americans out of work to save 65 million a year? Go ahead. We will take our 10 percent of your 56 billion dollar company and go elsewhere. Merica. You gotta be a man. Grab these big corporations by the pussy. Let them know whose boss. the opposite a weak whiny little socialist liberal would do.Which is nothing but bitch about things with no solution at all.

Obama did far worse:
-he went after the Catholic nuns
-he had the IRS go after the Tea party
-they went after FOX journalist Rosen, who is a well respected man
-went after Christians faith
-abused his power with executive orders
-ignored the laws on immigration issues
-lied to the american people on the Iran deal
-his administration broke the law on the fast and furious gun policy
-lied on Benghazi

I can go on and on and you say people are misinformed.
No people are fed up with this shit.

It's difficult, USA needs to examine its foreign policy and become a bit more benign, however it wasn't (and can't) allow others to become more dominant. It also needs to focus internally on the disparity between rich and poor and rethink the extreme version of capatalism it promotes.

Give a man a fish, and he'll eat for a day, give a man a rod and he'll feed himself. Alternatively, stop posioning the waters and don't abduct a black guy's great great grandfather into slavery and turn up 200 years later,on your gap year, talking shit about poverty and pollution