You not only understand it, you practice it. That's why I can post this, knowing that you'll never see it.
Donald Trump is an intuitive genius, and if you don't understand this, you will never stop him.
- Thread starter Andy Hong
- Start date
You not only understand it, you practice it. That's why I can post this, knowing that you'll never see it.
Are you kidding? He would never admit that Russia deliberately helped him, least of all at his behest. Donald Trump has had significant financial ties to Russian oligarchs. Even from what little we know that has been publicly revealed (like the drastic 100% over-payment he received on real estate property that was later trashed and sold for significantly less), there have been enough signs of business transactions with oligarchs, plus the complete lack of US banks that would lend money to Trump, to raise suspicion... of which Trump did absolutely nothing to abate other than to brashly claim he was not in debt to anyone. He refuses to release his tax returns, even though he is on record of promising to do so on conditions that were later met. Once he got into office, he dismissed it off hand as "nobody is interested, so I'm not releasing them." Bold faced lie. Oh he has plenty to hide, otherwise he'd reveal them like every other modern day president has done.
From reading that one would have to admit the Democrats strategy failed them and they have themselves to blame for not winning the election.
Actually more people by head count voted for Hillary.
Electorates by and large don't like to be told negative things, i.e." Coal jobs are gone and aren't coming back. They tend to like to be told things like "I'll bring those coal jobs back". The latter gives the impression of hope albeit likely false hope, but some people will take false hope over the truth any day of the week.
Another tactic is to deflect all the ills onto a group or groups i.e. Illegal Immigrants. "If we could only get rid of the <insert group> everything would be better.
Another tactic is to deflect all the ills onto a group or groups i.e. Illegal Immigrants. "If we could only get rid of the <insert group> everything would be better.
You mean the right to vote is wasted on some people, because they prefer fairy tales to the truth?
I guess in some respects this goes to the OP again. Hillary had the numbers but not the strategy. She was not (to quote this thread title) an 'intuitive genius'. It was like Trump didn't win the election, Hillary lost it. At some level her party needs to learn from that because focusing on the peculiarities of their opponent may be transitory. Sure once Trump goes someone else will take his place BUT it's up to the Democrats to appeal to voters who put Presidents in power. Hillary spent too much time being fawned over by celebrities and waiting for Trump to shoot himself in the foot. Which he was doing, yet she still couldn't get it together.
But more people voted for Clinton than Trump. Now for me a Presidential Election should be decided by whomever gets the most votes. Unfortunately or fortunately depending on your viewpoint the US doesn't use that system. Under a system of who ever gets the most votes every vote counts no matter where in the country you are. And as for Urban vs rural areas argument, it's that what your Representatives and Senators are for.
They did but that is not the way their system works and the politicians and their campaigners knew that.
I question whether it is fair to have highly populated regions carrying the day in such a large country. The needs of each State should be heard and if the Electoral College gives less populated regions some 'clout' so be it. I wonder if they would ever change their system?
You could argue the opposite is it fair to have lower populated regions carry the day in such a large country. But under the US system the executive is separate from the legislative so any needs in regards to balancing things out could be done at that level. But I think there has only been 5 times that a US President won the EC vote but lost the popular vote (and further I think each time it was the Democratic party which won the popular vote but lost the EC).
Perhaps it's just me but I think things should be fair and equal so each region should have roughly the same number of voters (and in the case of the EC, 1EC vote should equal roughly the same number of voters regardless of state). But it's up to the Americans to decide what system they want.
Yep and the timing of any changes (if they want one) would be a big deal. Not too close to a controversial result.
When I moved to Australia it opened my eyes to the needs of a larger land based country and that is still taking into account that most of our population is coastal (not all). Even within our State the needs and resources seem to be Brisbane based. They used to have Parliament sit in other parts of Queensland to show the people I guess, they are being 'seen'. They don't do that anymore. When I see the attention Brisbane receives compared to the rest of the State even regards the Sunshine Coast (90 ks from Brisbane), it shows. The rail service is skewed more toward favouring the Gold Coast/Brisbane. Distribution of resources DO vary depending on where you live. It's hard not see that greater populated city areas take priority.
You don't need a large country for that perception to exist, it can exist in smaller countries as well such as the UK were the perception is there is London and then there is the rest of the UK, or things are often seen as London centric.
Maybe we should be mimicking the Electoral College
All I know is that living only 7 ks from Brisbane my lifestyle has improved. I get to walk on footpaths and there's a bus service every ten minutes. Life is good
My needs count, lol.
The issue is, the election should have never been close to begin with. Russia's "Meddling" is extremely minor at best and is pretty standard fair for what major powers do to countries all around the world. The US has been involved in outright vote rigging in Russia back in the 90s (ironically putting Putin in power) and Israel and Saudi Arabia heavily involve themselves in US elections. Israel also campaigned and funded Trump using their huge influence among American Jewish communities to push a Pro-Trump narrative since Trump and the Republicans are viciously Zionist while Obama/Israel relations were borderline hostile at times, yet we don't see everyone and their dog screaming about Israel interference with US elections. Hell didn't a report show that the majority of hacking during the election actually came from China?
The Russia stuff is largely just the Democrats playing on old cold-war propaganda and the Deep State playing along because they still view Russia (and Iran) as ideological enemy no.1. The biggest issue that nobody is talking about is why did the Democrats lose thousands of political offices under Obama and implode during the election? The Russia stuff is largely a distraction and largely mass delusion by liberals who think that "Russiagate" is going to bring down the government when lets be real, It's basically just Plamegate 2.0 and Plamegate actually had far worse consequences (Hundreds of thousands of people dead, the US embroiled in endless war, an entire region in chaos) and resulted in basically nothing being done against the Bush administration.
All 17 US intelligence agencies (which are not known for their overwhelming liberalism) and numerous Republican lawmakers agree that it's a major national security issue, they were investigating it before Donald Trump even announced his candidacy, and it was not intended to "take down" the government (you're conflating it with the Mueller investigation, though that's also not about taking down the current administration); nor do most liberals think that is going to be the likely outcome.
Last edited:
Maybe we should be mimicking the Electoral College
All I know is that living only 7 ks from Brisbane my lifestyle has improved. I get to walk on footpaths and there's a bus service every ten minutes. Life is good
What is this thing called a "Bus service" that you're talking about?
My saving grace. Not being a driver I either walk, get the husband to drive me, or get on a bus ...What is this thing called a "Bus service" that you're talking about?
Hi rahullak! Not necessarily - since he's using his intuitive thought process to target the intuition of the Trump supporters/American population, we could get someone who instead uses more of their knowledge/research and slow deep rational logical thought process to target those people.
E.g.: If it were me, I'd try and say the following on camera to Trump Supporters:
"Hi Trump Supporters!
Now, I know when you heard about Trump's tweets and statements, you quickly felt that some or most of them were great statements, and Trump definitely meant them when he said them. But, did you notice that he never made it clear then or now in WHAT WAY he meant them? Serious, joking or something in between? This means when you common sensed that these were great statements, you must have also common sensed that Trump was serious or joking or something in-between. And therein lies the problem - you can't all be correct. Take the wall for instance - Donald can't do all 3 - he can't build the wall, not build the wall AND build a metaphoric wall. And certainly, a number of Trump supporters who thought he was joking or metaphoric are a bit worried because they've been told that the wall is going to go through their land (or in one case, their golf course!)One thing I noticed, Trump seems to mean everything he says, BUT he doesn't have to believe what he says, since that wasn't the aim, since the aim is to say something that gets attention, makes him look good and will be listened to by everyone and considered great by the common sense and best judgment of enough listeners.
Also: Donald and rules: We run into 4 problems. 1: Donald is ignorant of the rule (and doesn't try to know it exists). 2: He can't be bothered to understand why the rule exists. 3: He can't be bothered to understand why he should follow it, and 4: He can't be bothered to actually follow it.
And, when Donald says something, he's only intuited that it's a good thing for him to SAY HE'S GOING TO DO. He hasn't given any research or deep thought or even intuitive thought into 1: Will he actually do it. 2: IS Is it a good idea to do it 3: How to do it.
