Wisconsin Recount Gets the Green Light

  • Thread starter Thread starter RosyAnne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
commenter said:
He may be skilled at using the media, but that fact is far outweighed by the fact that the great majority of the media was biased for Clinton (or any secular, pro-choice politician). The media may have leaned towards Trump in the primaries, as opposed to conservative, pro religious Republicans, but once he was perceived as somewhat prolife, somewhat anti-secular agenda, heavily anti-big government, he was trashed by most of the media.

Other than banning or limiting abortion, there is no greater priority in my mind than breaking up the giant media corporations. Nobody should own more than one cable channel, more than one major newspaper, more than one TV station. This would break up some of the few conservative empires too, which is fine with me, but by far the giant media conglomerates are to the secular left.
Click to expand...
The media, of which I will include comedy news shows and late night shows were pro trump I the primaries for 2 reasons. 1. Ratings
2. They ( wrongly) believed the best chance for Hillary would be to have her opponent be perceived as a clown.

Once the nomination was secured they ran with the idea of a brokered convention and the end of the Republican Party. ( if that sounds familiar it’s because they are now running with an electoral college fight…

I am still basking in the afterglow of this win.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
The media, of which I will include comedy news shows and late night shows were pro trump I the primaries for 2 reasons. 1. Ratings
2. They ( wrongly) believed the best chance for Hillary would be to have her opponent be perceived as a clown.
Click to expand...
Hillary was more challenged with Sanders than with Trump.
 
ProVobis said:
Hillary was more challenged with Sanders than with Trump.
Click to expand...
Well, she was challenged. I’m not sure more than trump. I wonder if after a tone of reflection the DNC will rethink super delegates. Though I think Bernie would have been beaten worse. I think they ran thier toughest candidate. It played to a historical first in a time of inclusion and she had experience and savvy. Without super delegates I’m not sure sanders would have been seen as the direct challenger. But because he could play the “unfair” card he garnered a lot of support.

Hillary should have played the gender card. It would have worked.
 
:popcorn:Recount update:
Trump/Pence originally led Clinton/Kaine by 22,177. So far, not including the City of Milwaukee, Clinton/Kaine have gained 61 more votes than Trump/Pence, but still trail.
Click to expand...
Including the December 7 results, Trump/Pence are up 495 votes, Clinton/Kaine are up 556 votes, Castle/Bradley are up 20 votes, Johnson/Weld are up 63 votes, Stein/Baraka are up 64 votes, Moorehead/Lilly are up 8 votes, and De la Fuente/Steinberg are up 15 votes.
Click to expand...
Source:
google.com/amp/fox6now.com/2016/12/08/wisconsin-elections-commission-recount-82-complete-hillary-clinton-gains-61-votes-on-president-elect-trump/amp/?client=safari
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
Well, she was challenged. I’m not sure more than trump. I wonder if after a tone of reflection the DNC will rethink super delegates. Though I think Bernie would have been beaten worse. I think they ran thier toughest candidate. It played to a historical first in a time of inclusion and she had experience and savvy. Without super delegates I’m not sure sanders would have been seen as the direct challenger. But because he could play the “unfair” card he garnered a lot of support.

Hillary should have played the gender card. It would have worked.
Click to expand...
I think she did play it and it did not work. She came with too much baggage and she was an uninspiring candidate.
 
Hillary set her campaign strategy by focus group, not personal conviction.

Only Wall Street paid enough to hear her personal conviction on the issues.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
You must be thinking of someone else. From the night of the election, I was resigned to having Trump as president, and have even been looking for signs of hope from him that he would be a unifier. What I do object to is the false narrative that somehow this election was any sort of a resounding mandate to ignore the desired policies of half the nation and cater only to the policies favored by those who supported Trump. That would be a mistake.
Click to expand...
I’m inclined to agree with you here. When I think of clear victories where the president-elect could be said to have a mandate, I think of Reagan in 1984. Trump in 2016? Not so much. Where our nation is at right now, I just don’t think we’ll see any blowouts for quite some time in the presidential race.

Obviously, this doesn’t effect the final income. But it is something Trump—and all of us—should keep in mind. The country is divided on a great many issues. We need to find ways to work together rather than polarizing people even more than they already are.
 
I am still basking in the afterglow of this win.
Click to expand...
The nevertrumpers are the ones making it unavoidably enjoyable with their hysterical reactions even to those of us who voted for others in the primary.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Obviously, this doesn’t effect the final income. But it is something Trump—and all of us—should keep in mind. The country is divided on a great many issues. We need to find ways to work together rather than polarizing people even more than they already are.
Click to expand...
As long as we have winners and losers in elections, this is not too likely to happen. Probably the only President I know who was able to unite the country was Gerald Ford, who never received votes for the top office.
 
Joe_5859 said:
I’m inclined to agree with you here. When I think of clear victories where the president-elect could be said to have a mandate, I think of Reagan in 1984. Trump in 2016? Not so much. Where our nation is at right now, I just don’t think we’ll see any blowouts for quite some time in the presidential race.

Obviously, this doesn’t effect the final income. But it is something Trump—and all of us—should keep in mind. The country is divided on a great many issues. We need to find ways to work together rather than polarizing people even more than they already are.
Click to expand...
It would be nice to have unity, but realistically it won’t happen - probably should **not **happen, in our lifetime. We don’t have liberals vs conservatives anymore, we have:
  1. much of the nation who believes some truths are absolute, abortion is murder, life a gift from God; and marriage something created by God, both life and marriage predating government;
    and…
  2. much of the nation, backed by the media, believes society can redefine rights of life, and the nature of marriage, however it wants; that government is the agency that can redefine these, and other rights, rather than rights being inherent, from a Creator.
The craving for unity at any cost will lead to continuing acceptance of #2, above.

Those who continue to believe in #1 above will continue to be attacked as divisive. So be it. We have our obvious enemies, but our not-so-obvious enemies are those who crave compromise, who want to “bring us together” in reconciliation, who really lead us towards #2. There are situations where if you do the right thing you will be attacked for polarizing. But we really are not driving people apart, we simply are pointing out where people are actually standing. It is dishonest to pretend this is still the 1960s, with liberals and conservatives, all of whom still believed in absolute dogmas of truth and right, but needed to compromise on the non essentials. It is a different world now.
 
commenter said:
It would be nice to have unity, but realistically it won’t happen - probably should **not **happen, in our lifetime. We don’t have liberals vs conservatives anymore, we have:
  1. much of the nation who believes some truths are absolute, abortion is murder, life a gift from God; and marriage something created by God, both life and marriage predating government;
    and…
  2. much of the nation, backed by the media, believes society can redefine rights of life, and the nature of marriage, however it wants; that government is the agency that can redefine these, and other rights, rather than rights being inherent, from a Creator.
Click to expand...
It is apparent in so many ways that the divide over abortion was not even in the top 10 among reasons people got so polarized. Just a few reasons: Trump’s lackluster support of the pro-life issues. The noticeable lack of much campaigning by either side on the abortion issue. The issues that really marked the divide: Immigration. Terrorism. Gun control. Jobs. Foreign trade agreements. Health care. These are the issues the candidates talked about in all their campaign speeches. These are the issues that the candidates talked about in the debates. These are the issues that average voters talked about when asked. And many of these issues are issues for which some compromise is possible.

To say now that there should not be unity is to ignore the fact that half the nation prefers positions contrary to those Trump campaigned on. And I am not talking about abortion. Very few people are. It is wrong to pretend that the polarization in the US is over mainly over this issue and resign ourselves to four years of permanent distrust of half the population of the country. We do have to live with each other whether we agree with their politics or not.
 
mary_bobo said:
I think she did play it and it did not work. She came with too much baggage and she was an uninspiring candidate.
Click to expand...
No, the media and talking heads tried to play that card but she didn’t until her concession speech which was almost SOLEY about the “female”.
I am a conservative, I detest the clintons and have little respect for the liberal mindset, but if her campaigned focused on the feminine, not only would she have won but she might have even had voters like me with my four girls with me in the voting booth.

As it stood, she campaigned as the “polititian” vs the circus sideshow. Polititians should know, the side show wins.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
It is apparent in so many ways that the divide over abortion was not even in the top 10 among reasons people got so polarized. Just a few reasons: Trump’s lackluster support of the pro-life issues. The noticeable lack of much campaigning by either side on the abortion issue. The issues that really marked the divide: Immigration. Terrorism. Gun control. Jobs. Foreign trade agreements. Health care. These are the issues the candidates talked about in all their campaign speeches. These are the issues that the candidates talked about in the debates. These are the issues that average voters talked about when asked. And many of these issues are issues for which some compromise is possible.

To say now that there should not be unity is to ignore the fact that half the nation prefers positions contrary to those Trump campaigned on. And I am not talking about abortion. Very few people are. It is wrong to pretend that the polarization in the US is over mainly over this issue and resign ourselves to four years of permanent distrust of half the population of the country. We do have to live with each other whether we agree with their politics or not.
Click to expand...
IF she lost the catholic vote, which I still don’t think she did, (yes I saw the report that trump won the Catholic vote and I flat out don’t believe it) then abortion would have been the absolute deciding factor in losing that demographic.
 
Hoosier_Daddy said:
IF she lost the catholic vote, which I still don’t think she did, (yes I saw the report that trump won the Catholic vote and I flat out don’t believe it) then abortion would have been the absolute deciding factor in losing that demographic.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is true. But that does not mean it is a good thing for the country to remain highly polarized, which was the only point I was arguing against.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Yes, that is true. But that does not mean it is a good thing for the country to remain highly polarized, which was the only point I was arguing against.
Click to expand...
Then the non-Trump folks need to accept that they lost and no recount or protest will change that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top