• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

When Bernie Sanders came in the Democratic Primary, Clinton was not my first choice.

I proudly voted for her in the general election even so due to her vast experience and I believe empathy, but she lost. Now we have to move forward and see what we can do to check the excesses of the Majority party. The next 4 years will be difficult but I believe America will survive.

In a sense Trump is a black box, as fickle in policy positions as Romney was, I just hope he will hold himself to a better standard that was shown in this election.

Though the best I could hope for is a repeat of Bush administration policies in the domestic front.
 
When Bernie Sanders came in the Democratic Primary, Clinton was not my first choice.

I proudly voted for her in the general election even so due to her vast experience and I believe empathy, but she lost. Now we have to move forward and see what we can do to check the excesses of the Majority party. The next 4 years will be difficult but I believe America will survive.

In a sense Trump is a black box, as fickle in policy positions as Romney was, I just hope he will hold himself to a better standard that was shown in this election.

Though the best I could hope for is a repeat of Bush administration policies in the domestic front.

To what extent do you think the Republican Party and Trump will be at odds with one another?
 
Just read through the Trump 100-day plan that BadSheep linked to, and I must say there are some very good points within it, many of which I will touch up on as follows:
FOURTH, a five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.

FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.
These three above are what I would call sorely-needed changes. It's astounding how much power past government officials have as lobbyists. What's equally troubling is foreign lobbyists being allowed to raise money to influence American elections.
FIRST, I will announce my intention to renegotiate NAFTA or withdraw from the deal under Article 2205.

SECOND, I will announce our withdrawal from the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

THIRD, I will direct the Secretary of the Treasury to label China a currency manipulator.

FOURTH, I will direct the Secretary of Commerce and U.S. Trade Representative to identify all foreign trading abuses that unfairly impact American workers and direct them to use every tool under American and international law to end those abuses immediately.
Let's hope his proposal to renegotiate or withdraw from NAFTA actually comes to fruition. That and other "free trade" agreements have been nothing short of disasters for American workers, especially in manufacturing.

This is late-breaking, but soon-to-be-Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) has indicated that Congress will not ratify the TPP, dealing a serious blow to Obama's incessant push to have that trade agreement ratified. Many have said that TPP would also have a negative impact against the American manufacturing base.

The third and fourth points are also what I would call sorely-needed changes. China and other countries that have been taking what's left of our manufacturing base due to trade agreements need to be held accountable.
SEVENTH, cancel billions in payments to U.N. climate change programs and use the money to fix America's water and environmental infrastructure.
Although many (especially on here) will be angry about this, but I think this is another important change-we have environmental issues here at home to take care of that we could be spending the money on instead of directing it to the UN, even if it means sanctions are imposed on us as a result. (Am I wrong for thinking about the Flint water crisis when I first read this point? The money we're sending to the UN to "save our planet from catastrophic man-made global warming" could go a long way to help Flint solve their water woes by replacing their corroded lead pipes if used there instead.)

Although his immigration policy and border security proposals are very controversial, there is one point that I think would be good:
FIFTH, suspend immigration from terror-prone regions where vetting cannot safely occur. All vetting of people coming into our country will be considered "extreme vetting.
As controversial as this is, this could go a long way in protecting our national security from ISIS.
Middle Class Tax Relief and Simplification Act
An economic plan designed to grow the economy 4% per year and create at least 25 million new jobs through massive tax reduction and simplification, in combination with trade reform, regulatory relief and lifting the restrictions on American energy. The largest tax reductions are for the middle class. A middle-class family with two children will get a 35% tax cut. The current number of brackets will be reduced from seven to three, and tax forms will likewise be greatly simplified. The business rate will be lowered from 35% to 15%, and the trillions of dollars of American corporate money overseas can now be brought back at a 10% rate.
Although this will probably be fought tooth-and-nail by Congress, I'm liking the idea of consolidating the tax brackets, and I also like the idea of allowing offshore corporate money to be brought back to the US for a one-time 10% tax rate. I would like it, though, if additional penalties are imposed for US companies moving their money offshore.
Regardless of what people may think, our current tax code as it is now is extremely complicated, broken, and choc full of loopholes. I hope we can finally see some of these loopholes closed, and our tax code be made clearer than it is now.
End the Offshoring Act
Establishes tariffs to discourage companies from laying off their workers in order to relocate in other countries and ship their products back to the U.S. tax-free.
As controversial as tariffs are, this would go hand-in-hand with an action to label China as a currency manipulator, and could help our balance of trade at least a little.
School Choice and Education Opportunity Act
Redirects education dollars to give parents the right to send their kid to the public, private, charter, magnet, religious or home school of their choice. Ends Common Core and brings education supervision to local communities. It expands vocational and technical education, and makes two- and four-year college more affordable.
I know this won't impress anybody on here (especially since they seem to want free college), but I'm really happy that Trump wants to end Common Core-it, like other federal education reforms, has been a disaster for our students. Since when is 1+8="almost 10"? Or for that matter, 2+2="could be 5"? Since the beginning of time, 1+8 has always equaled 9, and 2+2 always has been four. Also really like his plan to expand vocational-technical education (I am a big advocate of vocational education, especially at the high school level.)
Repeal and Replace Obamacare Act
Fully repeals Obamacare and replaces it with Health Savings Accounts, the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines and lets states manage Medicaid funds. Reforms will also include cutting the red tape at the FDA: there are over 4,000 drugs awaiting approval, and we especially want to speed the approval of life-saving medications.
As controversial as this is, I would be very happy to see ObamaCare go. As well-intentioned as Obama was in wanting to improve our health care system, his plan took an already-broken health care system and made it even worse, by causing insurance premiums to skyrocket faster than ever before while cutting benefits that were previously available. I do, however, really want to see tort reform being considered as part of a plan to improve our health care system.
Restoring National Security Act
Rebuilds our military by eliminating the defense sequester and expanding military investment; provides veterans with the ability to receive public VA treatment or attend the private doctor of their choice; protects our vital infrastructure from cyber-attack; establishes new screening procedures for immigration to ensure those who are admitted to our country support our people and our values.
This and his plan to deal with illegal immigration actually go hand-in-hand. I see the plan to allow our veterans to visit their own private medical doctor for treatment as a good stop-gap that would hold them over while our VA hospitals are repaired or rebuilt to meet the same stringent standards required of private-sector hospitals. When emigrating to almost any other country from the United States, you will be required to respect and obey their laws-I believe the US should require that immigrants go through the processes prescribed by federal law, and that they be willing to accept and adapt without trying to force their native country's culture on the rest of us.
Clean Up Corruption in Washington Act
Enacts new ethics reforms to drain the swamp and reduce the corrupting influence of special interests on our politics.
This is going to be a very tough one that has a limited chance of actually taking place, but it's about time that our government finally listen to the will of the people. Not just our President, but the members of Congress that we vote in are there to serve us the voters, not themselves.
 
I think they'll get along better than many expect because many of them share the same core beliefs.

Perhaps Badsheep is more knowledgeable about this: this cohort of Republican legislators, was there a wave of Trumpists or is it ideologically similar to the Republican Congress 2010+?
 
I'm pleasantly surprised that Clinton's nationwide popular lead is so paper-thin, much less the fact that Trump managed to pull through in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. The next big challenge is calming the tensions in such a divided nation as we are, especially among us young folks. (I can imagine that if Bernie Sanders had gotten the Democratic nomination, he would have definitely beaten Trump in both popular and electoral votes by a considerable margin.)

Actually, there are over 5 million votes left to tally up in California and Washington, an overwhelming majority of which will be for Clinton. By the time they are counted, her lead will be of about 2 million votes and 1.5 percentage points.

This said, I don't expect the "healing" to get any better. I expect people who voted for Clinton to flag every single thing Trump does in office (especially if it involved deporting people, removing carbon regulations and putting the world in danger of destruction, cutting taxes for the rich, cutting social safety net, removing bank regulations- thing he has promised to do). I expect regular demonstrations and Trump to be treated the way Fox News and the Republicans treated Obama for the past 8 years.

In other words, when Obama won, instead of cooperating with him, the Republicans became radicalized as their base screamed endlessly against "that Kenyan guy", producing someone as dangerous and removed from normal political norm as Trump as a result. Now that they are the ones losing despite taking more votes, I expect the Democrats to become as radicalized on the opposite direction and scream "Not our president" every single day until November 2020. And sooner or later, the US political system will break. I wonder if Trump will be the one in charge of breaking it, or if it will be whoever comes next.
 
I think realistically Trump himself will veer to the center. He yearns popularity and he has no historical love for the GOP.

It's the GOP themselves and moreso Pence I worry about.

Hopefully this'll pave the way to a presidential bid by Tulsi Gabbard in 2020. The Clintons are done, and so are a lot of the more corrupt dems. A hard shift to the left is coming for the Dems and with that, a likely reclamation of the White House in 2020 under an actual progressive.
 
You know, for a man who's (blatantly false) rhetoric was a lot about how "corrupt" the "mainstream media" is, and how bias everything was against him, it's certainty suspicious that it's only now some of the bigger political scandals around him are dropping.

For example, that the trump campaign had an sustained contact and interataction with the Russian government
https://www.snopes.com/2016/11/10/russian-diplomat-contacts-trump/

Or, probably most damning out of the recent releases, that he himself had been supplied with debate questions in advance by a member of fox news
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/me...te-question-in-advance-and-he-threatened-her/

I'm also interested in that people aren't talking much about his business now that he's probably going to be president. That massive conflict of interest that owes and is owed money by a wide variety of foreign powers and has vested interest in foreign land that he refuses to fully relinquish control of like... basically every other president has.


I really doubt Trump will go centre though. He might mellow some of his most out there crackpot right ideas but he's trying to pander to the hard right as much as he can. Pence will make 100% sure he doesn't stray too far, and will be pushing from the shadows to try and get his own horrifying legislation through
 
I think realistically Trump himself will veer to the center. He yearns popularity and he has no historical love for the GOP.

It's the GOP themselves and moreso Pence I worry about.

Hopefully this'll pave the way to a presidential bid by Tulsi Gabbard in 2020. The Clintons are done, and so are a lot of the more corrupt dems. A hard shift to the left is coming for the Dems and with that, a likely reclamation of the White House in 2020 under an actual progressive.

Haha, apparently Tulsi Gabbard was the write-in VP candidate for Sanders in California.

I don't know too much about her, but what I know I like. Just several things: she's a bit young, would be 39 in 2020? And with youth comes inexperience. It's nice that she'll have at least a term as Representative, but I think she could be more credible if she gets some Senate experience too. Maybe she could look at 2024 or 2038, when she'd be almost 50 and have over 10 years of experience in Congress. VP for 2020 though.

But I hope she is one of those rising stars of the Democratic Party. Now that Clinton lost, I wish she would've kept her vice-chair at the DNC - dunno how much influence she'd have and how the DNC actually works, but I think people with economic views like hers should hold more sway in the party.
 
Clinton's major failure was her lack of attention to white Obama voters in the midwest/rustbelt.

Her values have not been consistent on issues of racial/sexual orientation/religious identity. As such, she failed to appeal to these voters why supporting minority rights furthers their own rights. Sanders, who has values rooted in the philosophy of democratic socialism provided a sincere appeal to all groups as to why egalitarianism, cooperation, and collectivism is superior to divide-and-conquer mentality of both elitist capitalism and populist capitalism offered by Clinton and Trump.

It's pretty damn difficult to have a scandal ridden record while at the same time trying to provide various piecemeal policy implementations to pander to particular groups as Clinton did. I am not saying that I do not support these policies; in fact, I agree with most of them (the majority of which she NEVER supported in the past). However, she failed to argue to non-minorities why these protections to minorities need to be a part of a larger philosophy that improves all lives, such as democratic socialism. Sanders would have been able to appeal to all groups using this rather simple philosophy in order to make working class white americans feel included, as they too are oppressed by elite white capitalism -- a philosophy Clinton was the poster child of as per her 2008 presidential bid.

She basically tried to go for elite cosmopolitan capitalist (dropping the whiteness), whereas Trump went for white populist/nationalist capitalism. Both suck (though populism is always worse internationally). Populism is just better at flipping midwestern swing-states who do not get cosmopolitanism. Remember, this election was won by Trump converting white Obama supporters to Trump supporters -- these voters were not big-time Trump supporters from the get-go. It is not the third party voters who elected Trump; it was the Obama-Trump voter. Clinton failed us, if she were running against any other candidate than Trump she would have been decimated due to the content of her emails including election fraud. I actually do hope the Clinton Foundation continues to get exposed for propping up oppressive regimes now that Clinton, the less terrible choice for president, has lost the election because of her own actions.

Ideally a (cosmopolitan) democratic socialist will have a crack at the Democratic nomination for 2020. Keep an eye out for this incredible woman. I will be living in the counties where the most Obama-Trump voters were in Michigan and will campaign on her behalf if she throws her name into the ring.

[PokeCommunity.com] 2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]


Tulsi Gabbard stood up for Bernie, and risked a lot going against Debbie Wasserman Shultz, Hillary Clinton, among others. This congresswoman from Hawaii is exactly the sort of person that we need because she has the enthusiasm of Trump, except with the political experience, respect for other countries (aka the minimum requirement needed to negotiate with other countries), military experience, concern for women, racial minorities, and LGBTQ+ people, working class people of all races, while maintaining the highest ethical standards that Trump grossly lacks.

Yes, I know it's too soon to be talking about, but I need SOMETHING to look forward to. :/

I think realistically Trump himself will veer to the center. He yearns popularity and he has no historical love for the GOP.

It's the GOP themselves and moreso Pence I worry about.

Hopefully this'll pave the way to a presidential bid by Tulsi Gabbard in 2020. The Clintons are done, and so are a lot of the more corrupt dems. A hard shift to the left is coming for the Dems and with that, a likely reclamation of the White House in 2020 under an actual progressive.

Oh, I just saw this after my post! Glad to see others are taking notice!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If Trump is imprisoned over the teenager-rape case or the Trump U case, this means that Pence will take office. And we know just how hardcore conservative he is, thinking "gay" can be "cured".

I prefer Paul Ryan, who would take office if something happened to Pence; Ryan actually denounced Trump. So... what's it gonna take to get Pence out? ^///^;;;;;
 
Haha, apparently Tulsi Gabbard was the write-in VP candidate for Sanders in California.

I don't know too much about her, but what I know I like. Just several things: she's a bit young, would be 39 in 2020? And with youth comes inexperience. It's nice that she'll have at least a term as Representative, but I think she could be more credible if she gets some Senate experience too. Maybe she could look at 2024 or 2038, when she'd be almost 50 and have over 10 years of experience in Congress. VP for 2020 though.

But I hope she is one of those rising stars of the Democratic Party. Now that Clinton lost, I wish she would've kept her vice-chair at the DNC - dunno how much influence she'd have and how the DNC actually works, but I think people with economic views like hers should hold more sway in the party.

She has TONS of experience. It's almost hard to believe given her age.

2 years of experience at local government (Honolulu)
3 years of experience at the state government (Hawaii)
4 years of experience at the federal government, 8 years by 2020.
13 years of experience in political office by 2020.

Bonus: Over 10 years of military experience. Actually deployed in Iraq.
Bonus: Only American-Samoan to be elected to US Congress.
Bonus: One of two women who actively served combat roles in military elected to US Congress.
Bonus: She also has experience, like Trump, in winning political upsets. She defeated former mayor of Honolulu by over 20 points for the Democratic Primary for the US Congressional seat. Crushed the general election by a margin of 40+ points.

Spoiler:
 
Last edited:
I think one positive thing we can take away from this election is that a party cannot just ordain a candidate then force their whole voter base to vote for just that person....and expect it to work. DNC screwed up. I really can't pin it on a single thing...sexism or her controversial actions over the years....what she stands for....or some unholy combination of any of the above....or so on....but people do not trust Hillary. The establishment did, but if this election is any indication, America is going through a crisis of authority and no longer trust the establishment (government, schools, media, and big players in the private-sector) and Hillary represented all of that. Between the two wars of the last decade, the financial crisis of 2008, and the recent surge of social upheaval seen first on social media then in the nation at large....people have lost faith. Had the candidate been anyone other than Hillary, I'm positive Trump wouldn't have won.

I think we're going to see an increasing popularity of movement for a ranked voting system.

Maine already decided to adpot one.
 
Last edited:
The "one person, one vote" argument would've allowed Clinton to win because more people want her in office. But we have the electoral college system, which the founding fathers implemented to keep us from true democracy. Their reason was: the U.S. was still a new country, so they didn't wanna screw it up so soon.

It was okay then, but horridly outdated now. This means the next president is decided by a handful of swing states. Or as Trevor Noah put it: "Trump wins due to yet another bullsh*t college".

The electoral college is the only reason that the same major cities do not determine each and every election. Would that really be everyone having a voice? If both sides play by the rules of the electoral college and accept the outcome, it is fair. Obama won twice in a row under this system.
 
The electoral college is the only reason that the same major cities do not determine each and every election. Would that really be everyone having a voice? If both sides play by the rules of the electoral college and accept the outcome, it is fair. Obama won twice in a row under this system.
How would the same cities decide the election every time if we did away with the electoral college?
 
The electoral college is the only reason that the same major cities do not determine each and every election. Would that really be everyone having a voice? If both sides play by the rules of the electoral college and accept the outcome, it is fair. Obama won twice in a row under this system.

Yes, he did... as well as the popular vote. Both times.

Major cities, while housing a giant amount of people, don't necessarily determine entire elections on the basis of political identity. No whole area is red nor blue; most states are purple. This came into full play with Florida, which is never one solid color. And as a bonus, most news correspondents spoke during the tallying up over how Trump or Clinton had to win certain "areas" and "counties". In other words, we already have a system as such.
 
I live in such a county, and my state went the complete opposite of my vote. XD;;;;;
 
How would the same cities decide the election every time if we did away with the electoral college?

Because they contain very large numbers of people and, despite some individuality, people from the same areas and backgrounds tend to share the same political views. If you were playing on a game show where the objective is to successfully guess people's political affiliation and/or social views, would you not have have different guesses for a man from Los Angeles than one from rural Kentucky?

Yes, he did... as well as the popular vote. Both times.

Major cities, while housing a giant amount of people, don't necessarily determine entire elections on the basis of political identity. No whole area is red nor blue; most states are purple. This came into full play with Florida, which is never one solid color. And as a bonus, most news correspondents spoke during the tallying up over how Trump or Clinton had to win certain "areas" and "counties". In other words, we already have a system as such.

Indeed Obama did win the popular vote. While I can agree about states having shades of purple, cities in particular tend to be deep blue. Think of San Francisco and NYC.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top