TRVMP Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 I'm confused yet fascinated by this. Why are civilians involved in a motorcade for presidential candidates? Because they have tons of staff who need rides. I was around six cars behind Trump and had a travel/logistics manager with me. We were given rented black SUVs and of course had to be cleared by his security/Secret Service. Apparently this is quite common. I didn't get to meet him but the skinhead got his Trump coloring book signed by him ( ) and I got a selfie with his plane's tail in the background. It was quite an experience. In a motorcade you never brake or stop, and of course the roads were closed so we were driving on Dallas streets at a fair clip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Yes you're right: that winning candidate of whom roughly 60% of the electorate held an unfavourable opinion and also viewed as "untrustworthy", the highest recorded figures in the history of scientific polling in the US, (http://www.nbcnews.com/card/nbc-news-exit-poll-honesty-vs-temperament-n680296; http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/trump_favorableunfavorable-5493.html) is in fact a super-fantastic dreamboat that your country has fully rallied behind. Hence the riots of enthusiasm. If only elections were decided by polling rather than actual elections and Electors. Then you wouldn't have been so wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
port-ton Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Because they have tons of staff who need rides. I was around six cars behind Trump and had a travel/logistics manager with me. We were given rented black SUVs and of course had to be cleared by his security/Secret Service. Apparently this is quite common. I didn't get to meet him but the skinhead got his Trump coloring book signed by him ( ) and I got a selfie with his plane's tail in the background. It was quite an experience. In a motorcade you never brake or stop, and of course the roads were closed so we were driving on Dallas streets at a fair clip. That's pretty cool! In my mind you were all decoys to get shot at and blown up while pretending you could be the vehicle with the president/candidate in it, but your explanation is still interesting. Good people will do good things, bad people will do bad things, but only with religion do good people do bad things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TaunTon Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Leaving aside the hagiography surrounding Reagan's presidency (if the nuclear brinkmanship and global political instability of his first term is appealing, then stay tuned for the potential repeat) it's worth bearing in mind that he stood for the highest political office only after serving as governor of California, the most populous state. And didn't stand on a ticket of labeling Mexicans as 'rapists' and a back of a fag packet economic policy. Reagan possessed experienced and intelligent advisors - even if politically reprehensible - whereas it remains to be seen whether Trump will have anything other than fluffers at the helm of his administration. Can't argue with that assessment but the fact remains that a guy who was widely regarded as a bad joke candidate managed to survive (and even thrive) in the White House. Trump's personality is a country mile away from Regan's in terms of geniality but like Regan he's got a pretty good feel for what matters to middle america. Whether he can shape a confused and loose series of policy soundbites into a coherent economic plan remains to be seen but I don't doubt that his support will judge him harshly if he doesn't deliver something tangible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 That's pretty cool! In my mind you were all decoys to get shot at and blown up while pretending you could be the vehicle with the president/candidate in it, but your explanation is still interesting. You know the most amazing part? At no time, for the several hours I was there, was I searched or passed through a metal detector. We entered the airport tarmac through a corporate aviation office, rather than the main terminal (this was at Dallas Love Field), and we had a briefing with a Secret Service guy and one of the motorcycle police. Then all the cars/SUVs were lined up, all doors/trunks/hoods opened, and a sniffer dog went down the line checking them all. But we volunteers? Not physically checked. That was stunning to me. I did get a little badge with the letter 'A' on it from the Secret Service guy, which made me feel like a big important man, but yes, that was probably the alphabetical order for us getting sniped. The travel manager I was with, I was just talking to him about the campaign and stuff, on the way back from the hotel where the fundraiser was I asked him for the camp's honest opinion of Ted Cruz. He looked out the window and said "weasel." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 If only elections were decided by polling rather than actual elections and Electors. Then you wouldn't have been so wrong. What are the polls based upon if not the US electorate? Be specific. The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before.. So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Can't argue with that assessment but the fact remains that a guy who was widely regarded as a bad joke candidate managed to survive (and even thrive) in the White House. Trump's personality is a country mile away from Regan's in terms of geniality but like Regan he's got a pretty good feel for what matters to middle america. Whether he can shape a confused and loose series of policy soundbites into a coherent economic plan remains to be seen but I don't doubt that his support will judge him harshly if he doesn't deliver something tangible. Regarding a coherent economic plan, he's not even in office yet and step 1 is already accomplished. The TPP will not be ratified by the United States. This is incredibly good news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 What are the polls based upon if not the US electorate? Be specific. Did you look at the polls pre-election? They were virtually all wrong because they missed the new voters, ones who had sat out previous elections. They weren't skewed - that implies deliberate tampering - but they didn't capture the electorate. If they did they'd have called the national race a tie and not been as much as ten points out in places like Pennsylvania. So, polls are based on what pollsters believe to be a representative sample of the electorate for a given area (such as the US, or Pennsylvania), but their belief doesn't always correspond to reality. And in the case of this election, in key parts of the country, it didn't correspond to reality more often than not. What you're doing is the equivalent of saying that Celtic won on corners - true, but absolutely irrelevant to the contest at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Did you look at the polls pre-election? They were virtually all wrong because they missed the new voters, ones who had sat out previous elections. They weren't skewed - that implies deliberate tampering - but they didn't capture the electorate. If they did they'd have called the national race a tie and not been as much as ten points out in places like Pennsylvania. So, polls are based on what pollsters believe to be a representative sample of the electorate for a given area (such as the US, or Pennsylvania), but their belief doesn't always correspond to reality. And in the case of this election, in key parts of the country, it didn't correspond to reality more often than not. The error for most national polls was around 3%, So not exactly a 'new electorate' then, as much as it was a 'slightly different electorate'. So the "new voters" argument cannot alter the statistical fact that the majority of the US electorate viewed Trump unfavourably and considered him to be untrustworthy. Even if you generously applied the full 3% error to both, separate poll questions, you're still looking at 55% and nearly 60% - still historically unprecedented figures, other than for, erm, Hilary Clinton. The "new voters" argument is also undermined by the fact that, as it stands, both candidates have received fewer votes than Mitt Romney received in his comfortable defeat in 2012. The clear difference is that Clinton Dundeed fully five million Obama voters, through an incompetent campaign, a suppressed turnout as well as a swing of white voters. The first two factors are far more significant than the last though - Obama would have won at a canter. The only apt footballing comparison happens to be this year's Scottish Cup Final: two utterly gormless outfits, managing to trip over themselves on cue until a dramatic conclusion is finally reached. Neither of them were actually any good though, so the delirious Leith fanboys won't get away with claiming that they're now a football powerhouse again. The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before.. So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 The error for most national polls was around 3%, So not exactly a 'new electorate' then, as much as it was a 'slightly different electorate'. So the "new voters" argument cannot alter the statistical fact that the majority of the US electorate viewed Trump unfavourably and considered him to be untrustworthy. Even if you generously applied the full 3% error to both, separate poll questions, you're still looking at 55% and nearly 60% - still historically unprecedented figures, other than for, erm, Hilary Clinton. The "new voters" argument is also undermined by the fact that, as it stands, both candidates have received fewer votes than Mitt Romney received in his comfortable defeat in 2012. The clear difference is that Clinton Dundeed fully five million Obama voters, through an incompetent campaign, a suppressed turnout as well as a swing of white voters. The first two factors are far more significant than the last though - Obama would have won at a canter. The only apt footballing comparison happens to be this year's Scottish Cup Final: two utterly gormless outfits, managing to trip over themselves on cue until a dramatic conclusion is finally reached. Neither of them were actually any good though, so the delirious Leith fanboys won't get away with claiming that they're now a football powerhouse again. 1) Elections are decided by elections and Electors, not by polling. Unfavorability doesn't factor into it. At all. Celtic won on corners and the record books show that Douglas Imrie (assist: Efe Ambrose) scored the winning goal. Trump may be massively unpopular but he's still going to be President. National polling doesn't even matter in an electoral college system. Two days before the election there were pollsters giving Clinton an EIGHT point lead in Wisconsin, six in Michigan etc. How is that representative? It's not, because it missed the 'monster vote' of missing Trump voters who had sat out previous years, and perhaps (in fact, almost certainly) overestimated Hillary's minority support (which you were crowing about in February. Imagine thinking that black voters were going to mobilize for Hillary Clinton.) 2) How does that undermine it? The Republicans managed to turn out their coalition, the Democrats didn't, not in areas they needed to. 3) Gormless Literally this entire country's establishment and 90% of the media, and almost all of entertainment and pop culture, was rounded against him from the start. If squeaking a win in those circumstances renders him gormless then I'd hate to see what a better candidate would have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 1) Elections are decided by elections and Electors, not by polling. Unfavorability doesn't factor into it. At all. Celtic won on corners and the record books show that Douglas Imrie (assist: Efe Ambrose) scored the winning goal. Trump may be massively unpopular but he's still going to be President. So you no longer contest the fact that Trump is unfavorably viewed and deemed to be untrustworthy by the majority of the US electorate: good to know. National polling doesn't even matter in an electoral college system. Two days before the election there were pollsters giving Clinton an EIGHT point lead in Wisconsin, six in Michigan etc. How is that representative? It's not, because it missed the 'monster vote' of missing Trump voters who had sat out previous years, and perhaps (in fact, almost certainly) overestimated Hillary's minority support (which you were crowing about in February. Imagine thinking that black voters were going to mobilize for Hillary Clinton.) If the underlying cause was a "monster vote of missing Trump voters" then he wouldn't have fewer votes nationally than Mitt Romney received in his failed 2012 campaign. Trump won significantly more votes in Pennsylvania, slightly more votes in Michigan but actually fewer votes in Wisconsin than Romney in 2012. Had Clinton not Dundeed the Obama coalition from 2012, the only state in jeopardy would have been Pennsylvania. But she did, so they all went. How does that undermine it? The Republicans managed to turn out their coalition, the Democrats didn't, not in areas they needed to. Well yes. Republicans came home to their party candidate in typical numbers, while Clinton Dundeeing the campaign did for a coalition that would have comfortably won otherwise. The Democratic Party still has serious issues to address, but it means that Trump's electoral college landslide isn't actually a crushing mandate for change and wasn't actually caused by the untapped power of wood-chopping hicks. The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before.. So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 1) I never contested it. He is absolutely hated by probably half the population. The protests here in Dallas are only just dying down between last night and this morning. That's just one city. However, as mentioned, none of this decides the Presidency. The Electors decide, and they're going to vote for Trump. 306 Electoral College votes - that's pretty damn impressive. It's more than GWB got either time, for example. 2) Yes, he would, because *they are different voters*. The US elections are about mobilizing coalitions. If you don't understand this you won't read the numbers properly. Romney's base is not the same as Trump's base. Clinton's base is not the same as Obama's base (but tell me again, like you did in February, how African-Americans and Latin Americans are going to turn out for Clinton.) 3) You can't have it both ways - either Trump's raw numbers were too low, or the Republicans came home. In fact it's neither - his numbers were fine and the monster vote took him over the top in the states where it matters. For the first time in 100 years the Republicans now control Congress and the Presidency at the same time. They also have an open Supreme Court slot. I'm not really sure how much more of a mandate is possible. Still, they no doubt should check with YouGov and Rasmussen before passing any laws, since opinion polls show something different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Well yes you can have it both ways: the Republican core vote came in for Trump, but wouldn't have been sufficient to win against a competent opponent. But they faced Hilary Clinton instead, so Trump slithered home on a wafer-thin plurality in the key EC states and didn't gain a plurality across the country as a whole. So his own, presidential mandate is not decisive; though had Clinton won in the same scenario then popular discontent could have been much more serious. The site is supposed to be a place for the extended 'family' of Morton supporters - having an affinity with people that you don't know, because you share a love of your local football club. It's not supposed to be about point scoring and showing how 'clever' or 'funny' you are, or just being downright rude and offensive to people you don't know, because you can get away with it. Unfortunately, it seems the classic case of people who have little standing/presence in real life, use this forum as a way of making themselves feel as if they are something. It's sad, and I've said that before.. So, having been on Morton forums for about 15 years I guess, I've had enough... well done t*ssers, another Morton supporter driven away. You can all feel happy at how 'clever' you are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Well yes you can have it both ways: the Republican core vote came in for Trump, but wouldn't have been sufficient to win against a competent opponent. But they faced Hilary Clinton instead, so Trump slithered home on a wafer-thin plurality in the key EC states and didn't gain a plurality across the country as a whole. So his own, presidential mandate is not decisive; though had Clinton won in the same scenario then popular discontent could have been much more serious. You keep saying opponent like it's a singular thing. He was against everyone - the banks, the lobbyists, the media (90% of it at least), all of pop culture. A constant barrage from all sides. And it only made him stronger. You can't just say "oh the core Republican vote turned out" (at the time when his vote went down! And new voters weren't captured at the polls!) Something else happened here and you can't see it because you haven't done your research and you don't understand the electorate. And in any case, the good thing is he doesn't need a mandate from pollsters. He has* the Congress. Civil unrest has been during this election infinitely more severe from the anti-Trump people than the pro-Trump people. It's all very well to say that hypothetically we'd have MAGA hats storming the White House had Trump lost but the evidence doesn't really support it. To be an "out" Trump supporter in much of the country is to gamble your teeth. *as I said earlier I think he's going to face a lot of obstruction from his own party but on the face of it, this is the first time in a century the Republicans have had a united front in the executive and Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted November 11, 2016 Share Posted November 11, 2016 Now, all that said... I do think Sanders, had he the balls for the job, could have beaten him. One of the reasons (and here I agree with vT in part) that Trump was able to walk away from almost all of his scandals is that nobody, not even her supporters, can buy shock and outrage when it's a Clinton selling it. Their hands are just as dirty as his, and it simply doesn't wash when she tries to act like a paragon of virtue. The only thing that came close to sticking was Khizr Khan but I think in the end this was counterproductive as it fizzled out very early. Even 'grab them by the pussy' only hurt him temporarily because if you put "sex scandal" and "President" in a headline, neither of the candidates wins.* Sanders, on the other hand, had a somewhat populist message, a clean career, and a very excited base. He could have done it. But he didn't have the balls so it's irrelevant. Don't give me this rigged primary/superdelegates crap - the Republicans did everything short of a bear trap on the debate stage to stop Trump but it only made him stronger. Sanders meekly surrendered. And I say this as someone who supported him (rather than Trump) during the primaries. Only when it became clear that Sanders was defeated did I switch to Golden Don. *Some may say that's unfair, and even sexist, on Clinton because it was Bill and not Hillary who actually committed these acts, but then I remember how Hillary worked to smear Bill's victims and I hold her partially culpable nonetheless. She called Paula Jones a liar so as far as I'm concerned she's no better than Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capitanus Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 Utterly clueless. You'll be wrong in 2020 as well. He was wrong in the 2014 referendum, as well as this year's UK referendum, as well as the 2015 general election. He will be on shortly to salivate how his party-of-failure the SNP managed to get countless McEleny types elected in cooncil seats and Scottish regional cooncil seats, but oor VikingTon hasn't got a good track record of being right. *insert signature here* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capitanus Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 WTF!?! Bigdoc1874 a.k.a. SmallCock1690 is currently viewing this thread, haven't seen him on here in ages. *insert signature here* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigdoc1874 Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 WTF!?! Bigdoc1874 a.k.a. SmallCock1690 is currently viewing this thread, haven't seen him on here in ages. But I've seen you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capitanus Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 But I've seen you It wouldn't have been at mass today, I haven't been yet. *insert signature here* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRVMP Posted November 13, 2016 Share Posted November 13, 2016 One for the "taking it well" files: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37957673 Donald Trump's election risks upsetting EU ties with the US "fundamentally and structurally", EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has warned. "We will need to teach the president-elect what Europe is and how it works," Mr Juncker told students in Luxembourg. The Commission chief predicted that two years would be wasted while Mr Trump "tours a world he doesn't know". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.