薔薇語

If true that would be the first tangible indicator that what his son said about him during the campaign was correct - he's not planning on handling domestic or foreign policy himself. I wouldn't be surprised if the 'commander in chief' role is the least interesting to him.
 
Which admittedly suits the style of an international CEO - he has people for that.  If he has the right people then why would he need to be troubled by the minutia of leading when he can just focus on the business plan and delegate it?
 
I'm not particularly opposed to him being a hands off president, to be honest. I wouldn't be heartbroken if he spent the next four years playing Minecraft at the desk.

The following has absolutely no connection to the other conversation at hand. It is also not done in an angry, ironic, or otherwise undesired tone.
 
Why the scare quotes around my tag? Perhaps I haven't seen enough of your posts where you reference other users and the quotation marks are your standard. If so, I apologize. But I just don't quite get it. 

I am going to assume that it is because my actual user name is in Japanese 薔薇語. But I do go by Soar so feel free to use that as it is. Likewise, Foreign Orchid and Rose are ones I have gone / do go by. 

Anyway, back to the business at hand. ^^

"Soar" 

 

Time to dig down for some Fourth Party candidates. I nominate Darkseid.

Well, perhaps if the two major third parties had nominated a presidential candidate with the stench of competence about them.

Donald Trump says he was talked out of his waterboarding position by General Mattis, and he's much more moderate on Climate Change than he had been.  Time will tell, I suppose. I'm looking for reasons to be optimistic.
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/22/us/politics/donald-trump-visit.html?_r=0

Am I the only one who sees a parallel between Clinton's "Basket of deplorables" and Mitt Romney's "47%" comment four years ago?

But here is the thing, Mega, you have found four examples of him disavowing such groups. I personally knew of the two recent ones off the top of my head. You can now choose to accept him at his word here or hold him to his past statements. You are choosing the latter. 

Tomorrow he could give a speech summed up as "white suprimicists are bad. Don't hurt minorities". Then following that speech you would be faced with the same choice you have today. His past statements wouldn't have changed and his speech tomorrow wouldn't have deviated from his current rebuking. So, you would in essence have the same amount of information. Are we to magically accept you will change your opinion? I think not. There will always be a way to move the goal posts. 

"He didn't really mean it!"
"He phrased X too loosely so it means he really just hates minorities"
"He didn't do it early enough, so even if he isn't supporting them (which he still is!) he is still responsible for them!" 
"Y person connected to the campaign (but not actually connected) gave a secret Nazi handshake to signal President Elect Trump didn't really mean it."
"Yeah, but these people are still out there so he needs to keep repeating this until they are gone!"

And god knows what other goal-post moving tools will be used. 

There will be no satisfying anyone who isn't already satisfied. He has made two (4 per you) statements. One in the wake of harassment and one in response to the Neo-Nazis. 

Soar. 

An older man and his adult son had vastly different political views, always arguing over actions by either major political party.  In frustration, the son said, "Dad, if Satan was running on the Republican ticket, and Jesus was running on the Democratic ticket, you still wouldn't vote Democrat, would you?"
The dad responded, "Why would they switch parties now?"
 
(cue canned laugh track)
 
The fact of the matter is that many on each side think their person can do no wrong, and the other side's person can do no right.  (Note that I said "many".  There are moderate supporters on either side.)  That said, I agree with mega that Trump needs to get in front of this issue.  Not respond to it in interviews, which are reactive, though that's a good start.  But in a speech or press conference, which is proactive.  If he truly wants to be (or at least be seen as) the person uniting the country, to be a leader, he needs to be seen to lead.  Act, not react.  Prove his detractors wrong.

I think the problem with such analogies is two fold: they are overly simplistic and "othering", and they are clearly politically biased as people don't dare think about those implications when put against their candidate. Senator Obama (08) thought marriage should have been between 1 man and 1 woman. Does voting for him mean you are homophobic? No. Secretary Clinton has supported our surveillance state - does voting for her mean that Democratic voters support big-brother? No. She has supported bombing tactics that just deem all 14 boys in Yemen killed terrorists and has killed countless innocent families. Does voting for Sec. Clinton mean you support these bombing runs that murder children? No. Politics is a much more complicated issue than the above. These candidates also supported many other issues that were given more appeal to individual voters. And slinging around these hasty generalizations that divide people doesn't serve anyone but your own catharsis. 
 
Soar. 

To be a bit trite: the plural of anecdote is not data. This election didn't feature any particular major shift in substantive voting demographics for the Republican party***. Whites, white women, blacks, various age groups, local population, etc. The single largest shift (in raw numbers) was a one point shift between men and women (men increased by 1 percent form last time and women decreased by 1). But even that data point is incapable of expressing what happened because the women who did vote voted Republican at a lower rate. And while men increased in support for the Republican party by 1 percent, that is probably more a reflection of the slight uptick of Black and Latino support for the Republican party. 
 
All in all, President Elect Trump gained an extremely comparable vote share as Gov. Romney in terms of demographics and raw numbers. If your friends voted for Gov. Romney, they likely voted for P.E. Trump but don't want to tell you for, well, obvious reasons. 
 
Soar. 
 
***Note, this is limited to the Republican party. The Democratic Party saw some major shifts - hence why they lost. But those shifts were not to the Republican party. 

Not all Muslims are terrorists. Not all Mexicans are murderers and rapists. That lady would want us to hold these things true (and I do). But she sits there calling all Trump voters racists and homophobes. That's just a little hypocritical.
 
Both sides ran their campaigns based on anger, fear and aggression. Let's hope the next two elections aren't also sponsored by the Dark Side.

The conclusions one draws from data are subject to interpreter bias, obviously. Crimes of that nature are increasing, as are political speech excoriating those groups (including, but not limited to that of Trump). Chicken or egg, is one possible question. Would these candidates have found such popularity without this trend in such a closely contested election? Did these trends influence them?
 
Also, looking at behavior, you've got concerns expressed strongly around this subject by folks who have historically been victimized. Subsequent behavior includes appointing Sessions (!), the Breitbart white nationalism folks being linked to his inner circle, and so forth. It's the opposite of reassuring, and I can see no actual evidence supporting the other side of the ledger.
 
So I'm going to go with the actual prevalence/incidence scientists and say "not a good trend" and look to them to test these hypotheses. But in the meantime it is definitely not a good look.
 
None of that is hysteria. It's observation based on data and events. Others may of course, come to different conclusions. I do anticipate enough will share my concerns that this becomes a national discussion, but could be wrong.

There are. Proportional methods. They wouldn't even require much of a change, really. No amendments needed.
 
Right now we have first past the post, and we have to, because we only have one seat per district. But the constitution doesn't say first past the post, or one seat per district, or to use districts. Here's the relevant bits:
 
 
So, the constitutions didn't say that states had to divide up into one-seat districts. It gives most of the power for deciding the qualifications for representatives to the states, excepting what is already in the constitution. It gives states power to say how their representatives are chosen, but allows Congress itself can overrule them, even without an amendment.
 
So, there's nothing constitutionally stopping us from putting in a proportional or semi-proportional system. Of course, it'd be state by state, rather than nationally, but that's okay. I think that's how Germany does it. I'm a big fan of their Semi-Proportional method. (I'm not presenting it here for the sake of simplicity)
 
So, parties would create lists of representatives, then citizens would vote for parties, and the seats would be apportioned. We'd see the two big parties break up, since Green and Libertarian would suddenly have a chance.
 
As a bonus, suddenly the people on that list would be different sorts of politicians. Parties could pepper their lists with people who would be unelectable on their own (ugly, abrasive, whatever) but who had particular skills or knowledge that they wanted in their committees.
 
So, all we need to do is ask the two leading parties to commit organizational suicide. Easy, right!

Why would you think anything else would happen? We have spent the entire cycle demonizing the opposition. We have convinced too many that President-Elect Trump is the next Hitler and all that it entails. If you actually believed Hitler had been reborn in orange, wouldn't you go to streets? Actually, I am perhaps more shocked that more vocal elites in media aren't in full on apocalyptic riot mode given ths extremist position some have taken.
 
Perhaps this can serve as a lesson to us all about open processes, honesty and hopefulness in message, and NOT demonizing all opposition.
 
Soar.

When we start making over-emotional and/or accusational statements we put are planting the seeds of something that can't yield healthy fruit. This post election discussion is planting a lot of bad seeds. We aren't taking the time to check if something is true or if there is at least some data to back a statement up before letting it slip. "I heard a LGBT person killed themselves" becomes "10 LGBT people killed themselves" in this telephone game we call social media. It is like how Mega still believes in "Bernie Bros" long after the fact. "I am curious to see whether there was a hidden "gender penalty for Clinton in the Senator Sanders campaign" seems like an interesting idle thought. But one with no evidence but a LOT of emotion. And that is all it takes to provoke motivated (bias) reasoning to find any shred of evidence to prove a point - and it doesn't matter. 

The issue of Suicide is far stronger a case here than the 'gender gap'. That is true. It was probably unwarranted of me to link the two. The consequence of one is that people take it as a social cue to actually kill themself, and the other just inspires greater and unwarranted animosity among us. These memes that everyone who didn't support Sec. Clinton is a racist and/or sexist must stop. Idle speculation about how many of them there are should stop until you actually have some evidence for it and not just raw emotion. 

So, when is it appropriate to talk about talk about such things? When there is hard evidence. When do we talk about a spike in suicides? When there is evidence there is a spike in suicides. When we do we start saying Sec. Clinton lost because of millions of sexist voters? When there is evidence.
 
Soar.

NSFW- Language and a bit over the top. 
 

 
Soar.

I'd b interested in the data of that 2008 election.  And where they got such info.

Personally, I couldn't justify voting for either major party candidate--I don't trust Secretary Clinton as far as I could spit a rat, and I think Mr. Trump might actually be mentally ill. To my mind, a vote for either of them was not in the best interest of the nation's future--and would therefore be a wasted vote.
 
But that's just me.

Though, those Johnson probably picked were probably more disenfranchised conservatives than liberals (with Stein vice-versa).  If so, what you're saying doesn't amount to what yo think it means.  Quite, possibly if not for 3rd-partys Trump takes the popular too. 

Vote Entitlement is not a good thing. Simply sayIng "but he's worse" is just a play on "but Stacey hit me first, mom!* It is not endearing.
 
I voted third. I could not get behind a candidate who is anti immigration. I could not get behind one that put us in every single war in my lifetime. I could not get behind someone who has the temperament of a child. Nor one that risked war with Russia. I could not get behind someone who thinks our 2nd amendment rights are not subject to due processe. Nor ones that thought domestic mass spying was a legit use of power. I could not get behind someone who felt that Executive Orders were acceptable substitution for laws. I couldn't join a cause that uses racist language nor race baiting language. Couldn't join one that has destroyed student due processes protections on campus.
 
Secretary Clinton must earn support. We are not subjects to be drudged up once every four years. Treating the electorate like a mindless minion for your will does not work.
 
The Dem. party's expectation of compliance is vulgar. It as nonsensical as me saying "had only all you idiotic Clinton supporters voted Gov. Johnson, we wouldn't be in this mess. How dare you!"
 
People must be appealed to. The data is clear in its proof that Sec. Clinton's fear campaign (Fear Senator Sanders, fear Trump, fear Gov. Johnson, fear Dr. Stein) failed her and her party.
 
Soar

[snip]
My point is that the Clinton campaign seems more interested in deflecting blame than alayzing what they could have done differently. If they continue to do that, they will continue to lose.
 
How does blaming the voters help the Democrats going forward?

Vote Entitlement is not a good thing. Simply sayIng "but he's worse" is just a play on "but Stacey hit me first, mom!* It is not endearing.
 
I voted third. I could not get behind a candidate who is anti immigration. I could not get behind one that put us in every single war in my lifetime. I could not get behind someone who has the temperament of a child. Nor one that risked war with Russia. I could not get behind someone who thinks our 2nd amendment rights are not subject to due processe. Nor ones that thought domestic mass spying was a legit use of power. I could not get behind someone who felt that Executive Orders were acceptable substitution for laws. I couldn't join a cause that uses racist language nor race baiting language. Couldn't join one that has destroyed student due processes protections on campus.
 
Secretary Clinton must earn support. We are not subjects to be drudged up once every four years. Treating the electorate like a mindless minion for your will does not work.
 
The Dem. party's expectation of compliance is vulgar. It as nonsensical as me saying "had only all you idiotic Clinton supporters voted Gov. Johnson, we wouldn't be in this mess. How dare you!"
 
People must be appealed to. The data is clear in its proof that Sec. Clinton's fear campaign (Fear Senator Sanders, fear Trump, fear Gov. Johnson, fear Dr. Stein) failed her and her party.
 
Soar

Vote Entitlement is not a good thing. Simply sayIng "but he's worse" is just a play on "but Stacey hit me first, mom!* It is not endearing.
 
I voted third. I could not get behind a candidate who is anti immigration. I could not get behind one that put us in every single war in my lifetime. I could not get behind someone who has the temperament of a child. Nor one that risked war with Russia. I could not get behind someone who thinks our 2nd amendment rights are not subject to due processe. Nor ones that thought domestic mass spying was a legit use of power. I could not get behind someone who felt that Executive Orders were acceptable substitution for laws. I couldn't join a cause that uses racist language nor race baiting language. Couldn't join one that has destroyed student due processes protections on campus.
 
Secretary Clinton must earn support. We are not subjects to be drudged up once every four years. Treating the electorate like a mindless minion for your will does not work.
 
The Dem. party's expectation of compliance is vulgar. It as nonsensical as me saying "had only all you idiotic Clinton supporters voted Gov. Johnson, we wouldn't be in this mess. How dare you!"
 
People must be appealed to. The data is clear in its proof that Sec. Clinton's fear campaign (Fear Senator Sanders, fear Trump, fear Gov. Johnson, fear Dr. Stein) failed her and her party.
 
Soar

Sure, Sanders should have reached more people. Did I ever say otherwise? Did I or anyone in the Sanders camp blame the voters for his failure to get the nomination? 
Once Clinton won the nomination it was the job of her campaign to get Bernie supporters to vote for her. They got some but not enough. Are you saying that's the voters' fault?

My guess was some of the surrogates putting out feelers that Senator Sanders was sexist and racist didn't help his chances. Bernie Bros... Really? Secretary Clinton's was the US's version of 'campaign fear' from its inception.
 
On the ven diagram of voters, Secretary Clinton supporters could almost all get behind a left wing populist. But the Senator Sandes' supporters could not get behind a hawkish corportist. The DNC ruined their chances from the start.
 
Soar.