Ooooo… have you got any more on this? I like to think about it.
I mean - My cite would be his own reaction to suggestions that women or Hispanics don’t like him because of his behavior towards him. It’s not much of a cite, I know, but Trump’s insecurities are evident in his behavior.
If you want more, there’s been plenty written about Trump’s insecurities. Here’s an article from the Atlantic last March, discussing the insecurities that lead Trump to dwell on the “short-fingered vulgarian” slam (which is from, what - twenty-five years ago?) and, in his own mind, forced him to discuss his penis during the Republican debates.
But if you want something more entertaining - try this article from the NYT comparing the Women’s March with Trump’s inaugural crowd:
The composite image at the top, showing how far the crowd stretched on Saturday is really heartening.
To quote someone whom you guys love dearly, “Elections have consequences and, if you were unaware, he (Trump) won.” Continuously focusing on the “popular vote” is really quite sad, as there’s no such thing in the realm of the Presidential election. It didn’t matter two hundred years ago, it didn’t matter on November 7th, it didn’t matter on November 9th and it doesn’t matter today.
Anyway, I don’t really understand what the point of this topic is. Obama regularly ignored the annual March for Life, even though an upwards of 600K or so showed up to DC for it.
So you fell for that one, too.
USA Politics Today! Wow, another major news outlet that I had not heard of before today. But clearly, a glance at their home page proves that they are a strictly objective, non-partisan source! And I am the Queen of Romania.
Personally bothered, yes. That will influence what his next tweet will be about. I understood the “mandate” reminder to be an attempt to influence how he would set policy. Anyway, to put things in the argot of the times: Trump has moved us into a post-mandate world. The only thing that counts is winning. Any win is a biggly win.
Clothy’s link leads to one of the fake news sites - USA Politics Today - which has been blacklisted by Google.
Here’s a Media Matters article about the blacklisted fake news sites - propaganda sites, they should really be called.
No, I don’t think he has, although I agree that he would claim to have done so. Donald gets by on a certain brutish animal magnetism but all the other politicians who actually have to vote to implement Donald’s policies are going to be up for reelection soon. (And honestly - so well he, assuming he doesn’t go full Hitler).
Yeah. But that’s thing about our political system. You can’t just win the one time and then assume that you’re God-Emperor For Life. They have to win the next one, too. And the one after that. And then another. And another. And another.
Donald, of course, will only care about winning re-election. But he still has to work to do that. Meanwhile, the career politicians can’t just coast along. When they looked at the Marches yesterday, especially the marches held regionally, the career politicians should have been seeing Pissed-Off and arguably Well-Organized Voters. If those career politicians are smart, they would look at those comparison photos and draw some conclusions.
But aside from that, bothering Donald Trump’s personal insecurities … well, that’s its own reward.
When the electoral college was created, the US had about 5 million people, most of which were in just a handful of states on the East Coast, now it has over 300 million and considerably more spread out.
Either way, it never hurts to take a second look at something that was created over 2 centuries ago.
However, if you want to run with the idea that it was created a long time ago therefore there’s no need to change it, I’m going to call you out the next time you say that something was created a long time therefore it needs to be changed.
At least have the nerve to say that you don’t want it changed because it’s currently working for you.
True fact! I read about it in Romania Politics Today.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think “Candidate Trump” is long term winning strategy for the Republicans. If he runs again, or if they nominate more candidates like him, the Democrats will almost certainly figure out how to beat him (hint: Don’t run Hillary as a candidate). I’m hoping that Americans get their fill of dating “the bad boy” and move past that in the next election. Until then, expect Trump to be as unconventional as he has been. He thinks he won because of it, even if most of us think he won despite it. And no one is going to convince him otherwise.
Hillary won the popular vote by a large margin, but I doubt that would have happened if the candidate had been more of a Romney than a Trump. And it really does seem like she was if not the only candidate, one of the few who actually could have lost to Trump. I think Biden would have crushed him easily.
Yes, your source must be correct. They used lots of exclamation points.
Oh, baby… it matters. Just hide and watch. 
I’m curious as to how you think Trump managed to win states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan while-- at least when compared to prior presidential elections-- making Minnesota competitive, whereas the last four Republican nominees lost them all? Attributing his win to “America wants a bad boy!” is not only a poor analysis of what actually happened, but it sounds like something someone who learned nothing from this election cycle would say. I feel confident in saying if that’s the way Democrats (and #nevertrumpers who will be back come 2020) think, Trump will easily win reelection.
Trump’s campaign has consistently said their strategy was to make overtures to middle America, which they felt they could flip. And given the fact that he was able to do just that while holding onto the “Romney states”, I believe their analysis is slightly more attached to reality than is yours.
Yeah, okay. Wake me up when you successfully prevent Trump from becoming president.
…Oh, wait. You didn’t. And he was sworn into office on Friday.
And if the country gets fucked, too bad.:rolleyes:
Trump had a higher % of the vote (46%) than Bill Clinton did in 1992 (43%). He won by the rules of the game as laid down.
He. Won. The Election?
Did Clinton not have a mandate in 1992? Winning an even smaller percentage than Trump did?
Obstructionist Republicans over the past 8 years don’t seem to have cared one bit whether their partisan tactics were getting the country “fucked”.
I know it’s very convenient for conservatives to maintain that conservatives should be able to get away with any tactics, no matter how unethical or counterproductive, whereas liberals mustn’t use such tactics because it would be “hypocritical” or “selfish” of them. But your double standard is very apparent.
You’re overlooking the fact that although Clinton in 1992 won only 43% of the popular vote, his closest rival in the election won less than 38% of it.
Personally, I don’t think that attempting to quantify intangible “mandates” based on voting patterns means much. But if it means anything to you, then you have to acknowledge that relative percentages of popular vote are significant, not just absolute percentages.
Get over yourself. I am niether conservative nor American. And saying republican did it too is a non starter, the issue is deadlock, not who created it. You think the country can afford 4 more years of it just because it now “liberal” imposed?