Trump is President

[someone]

So lets get it straight, the same people who said Trump will do riots are actually the rioters themselves.

 

On election, more reason showing its a Hillary loss than Trump win. He actually got a little less votes than Romney 2012 whereas she got a big 5M less votes than Obama 2012. Clearly, many people were in disillusion with her. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by someone

[Muloghonto]

5 hours ago, Cricketics said:

How many Missouri, Baltimore kind of protests you saw during pre Obama era. say under Bush Era?

 

Why you are just predicting and assuming that Republicans and whites are all going to be racist and are going to mess up all the other color people. Why this mentality? Were Indians banned from coming to USA during Bush era? Did the current American white generation steal the country from the Native Americans?

 

We need to move on with that mentality and lets wait and see how Trump and republicans along with some democrats run the congress.

I am not saying at all that Republicans and whites are going to mess with coloured people. I am saying that the PoTUS is racist and is going to mess with coloured people. 

And republicans are going to mess with women & gays, since its in their track record to do so via supreme court appointments. 

[Muloghonto]

Quote

Ans 1-2: I find it difficult to believe that anyone has never made a lewd comment in their life. I have never found any one who If ambience is right, trust and  comfort is there within them people, and topic is sex and women, people open up, crack jokes or share tips, experiences, joke about marriage , and how his wife makes his life difficult. Its near foolishness to use those comments as not just measure but describe them people personality in whole. Now you may disagree with it, But most people know agree to what I am talking about.

There is a difference between making lewd comments and making comments that indicate you sexually assaulted someone. The Donald didnt share jokes or tips or such, he categorically says that he just kisses women without their consent and grabs them by the hoo-haa before they can do anything about it and then they just cave coz he is a star. That is categoric, sexual assault. Big, big difference.

if you say 'wow what an a$$ ! I wanna bang it!', its crude, but acceptable. If you say 'so i kissed her before she could do anything and then before she knew it, my pants were off and i was grabbing her', you should go to jail. There is a huge difference. 

 

Quote

Ans 3: Guy won. Fair and square. Accept it. If it was misogyny, Shouldn't Hillary would have lost in democratic primary. You are trying to portray as if republicans are misogynist and democrats are not. The real reason she lost is because people wanted change. Anyone from Obama administration apart from Obama would have lost this election.

 

I am not potraying, those are the facts. Republicans tend to be misogynistic redneck country dwellers, where red states have consistently given women far more trouble with abortion than blue states. 

[jalebi_bhai]

6 hours ago, Cricketics said:

They are protesting against Trump. They should be protesting against Hillary and Democratic party for putting this situation on plate. Had they not cheated against poor Bernie, Trump would have never won. They all are to blame. No lives people just out there on street.

I'm not sure if Bernie would've made a difference in the end. The mood of the Republicans was very clear after the Primaries. I mean, they rejected all the established Republican candidates and voted for Donald.

 

The Democrats thought this would be a cakewalk but Hillary's political history eventually caught up with her. The fence sitters swung this election.

 

Hillary would've been bad news for India and as an Indian citizen, I'm happy she lost more than the fact that Donald won.

[Muloghonto]

6 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

I'm not sure if Bernie would've made a difference in the end. The mood of the Republicans was very clear after the Primaries. I mean, they rejected all the established Republican candidates and voted for Donald.

 

The Democrats thought this would be a cakewalk but Hillary's political history eventually caught up with her. The fence sitters swung this election.

 

Hillary would've been bad news for India and as an Indian citizen, I'm happy she lost more than the fact that Donald won.

I think Bernie would've won because as you said, the mood in most primaries was 'hell with corrupt DC, we want change'. Bernie was a bigger change guy than Trump and unlike Trump who just said 'change change change. great great great. murrica murrica murrica', Bernie actually had a plan.

So i can see the disgruntled hill-billies easily voting for the stodgy old man with a plan to turn the system upside down, than a slick billionaire with catchphrases and no plan.

 

[Vilander]

8 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

I'm not sure if Bernie would've made a difference in the end. The mood of the Republicans was very clear after the Primaries. I mean, they rejected all the established Republican candidates and voted for Donald.

 

The Democrats thought this would be a cakewalk but Hillary's political history eventually caught up with her. The fence sitters swung this election.

 

Hillary would've been bad news for India and as an Indian citizen, I'm happy she lost more than the fact that Donald won.

Clintons reaped what they sowed, they probably rigged the primaries, i have read NBC,CBS,Fox across board everyone said Sanders would have won more massively against Trump may be they meant he had a chance.

[Vilander]

4 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I think Bernie would've won because as you said, the mood in most primaries was 'hell with corrupt DC, we want change'. Bernie was a bigger change guy than Trump and unlike Trump who just said 'change change change. great great great. murrica murrica murrica', Bernie actually had a plan.

So i can see the disgruntled hill-billies easily voting for the stodgy old man with a plan to turn the system upside down, than a slick billionaire with catchphrases and no plan.

 

well put, basically it costs to be a dynastic b** and have a pakistani for chief of staff esp if you are running for POTUS.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Vilander said:

well put, basically it costs to be a dynastic b** and have a pakistani for chief of staff esp if you are running for POTUS.

Huma Abedin is of both Indian and pakistani origin i thought....

 

[Vilander]

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Huma Abedin is of both Indian and pakistani origin i thought....

 

yup i prefer to forget that. I am hater basically, see my avatar. Her dad is Indian ( prof intellectual), mom's similar from pak, settled in Saudi , you'd know the rest, saudi islamist publication editorship etc. So intellectual high IQ jihad i guess.

[jalebi_bhai]

8 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

I think Bernie would've won because as you said, the mood in most primaries was 'hell with corrupt DC, we want change'. Bernie was a bigger change guy than Trump and unlike Trump who just said 'change change change. great great great. murrica murrica murrica', Bernie actually had a plan.

So i can see the disgruntled hill-billies easily voting for the stodgy old man with a plan to turn the system upside down, than a slick billionaire with catchphrases and no plan.

 

He would've fared better than HRC, no doubt. I'm not sure he would've won though. A Sanders vs Trump election would've had a very different set of dynamics at play. Would Bernie have been able to swing states like PA, MI, OH and WN in favor of the Democrats?

 

5 minutes ago, Vilander said:

Clintons reaped what they sowed, they probably rigged the primaries, i have read NBC,CBS,Fox across board everyone said Sanders would have won more massively against Trump may be they meant he had a chance.

Can apply to even what they did internationally. 

 

Again, not sure if Sanders would've made a difference. 

[jalebi_bhai]

16 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Huma Abedin is of both Indian and pakistani origin i thought....

 

Irrespective, she is bad news for India and the US.

[Vilander]

This serves as a remainder for all pseudo-liberals and Pseudo-seculars, you do not want to piss off the slient majority to such an extent that they actually come out and vote, shit hits the roof after that.

[Muloghonto]

1 minute ago, Vilander said:

This serves as a remainder for all pseudo-liberals and Pseudo-seculars, you do not want to piss off the slient majority to such an extent that they actually come out and vote, shit hits the roof after that.

Not really the moral of the story. Moral of the story is, the liberals need to come out and vote more.

Almost all western poll analysis shows that the 18-30 crowd tends to be the most liberal one and the smallest slice of the pie for # of people who show up to vote. 

In nations that see 50-55% voter turnout, thats where the biggest problem is for the liberals : young people, who tend to be liberal, have school, kids, work, after-work engagements to worry about. Old people, who are overwhelmingly conservative, have no problems standing in line for 4 hours, coz those 4 hours are 'i get to talk to a person who is not my old spouse of 50 years! OMG!'.

 

Btw, the voting process in the US needs to improve. My wife's mom worked the polls this year, in Florida. Its a good thing that she is trilingual, with fluent Spanish, coz except for her, no other poll worker could speak Spanish in a community that is 75% spanish speaking by voter registration and the old spanish grannies had nobody except my in-law to direct them to poll. And most of the other old white ladies didnt give a damn that the 'mexicans' couldn't vote properly.

 

[Muloghonto]

15 minutes ago, jalebi_bhai said:

He would've fared better than HRC, no doubt. I'm not sure he would've won though. A Sanders vs Trump election would've had a very different set of dynamics at play. Would Bernie have been able to swing states like PA, MI, OH and WN in favor of the Democrats?

 

Can apply to even what they did internationally. 

 

Again, not sure if Sanders would've made a difference. 

Given that Hillary won the popular vote and Pennsylvania + Florida came down to less than 2% votes, if Bernie would've gathered more votes than Hillary, it is very likely he'd have gotten the extra 1-2% in those super-close states to win. Also, Bernie had great support in the rust belt and deep south during Democrat primaries due to his welfare policies, that would've made big difference in the red-wall of the south.

 

[beetle]

On 11/9/2016 at 9:38 PM, Muloghonto said:

Being a woman in USA is not an easy thing, Rads.

Worse than being a woman in India?

If you mean ,women in politics .....Hillary probably did more harm to the 'women in political power'cause .If women are as bad or worse than men in politics...then what is the incentive to change .

[Muloghonto]

2 minutes ago, radhika said:

Worse than being a woman in India?

If you mean ,women in politics .....Hillary probably did more harm to the 'women in political power'cause .If women are as bad or worse than men in politics...then what is the incentive to change .

Its slightly worse in India, but not by much. In India, women have a slightly better time in office environment than in USA, because in India, 'sexual talk/innuendo' is still a major taboo and male colleagues won't just come up to you and comment how your ass looks today. In USA they will.
But USA has more tolerance for women when their husbands abuse them, unlike India.But it is not that much different, really. 

[Vilander]

38 minutes ago, Muloghonto said:

Not really the moral of the story. Moral of the story is, the liberals need to come out and vote more.

Almost all western poll analysis shows that the 18-30 crowd tends to be the most liberal one and the smallest slice of the pie for # of people who show up to vote. 

In nations that see 50-55% voter turnout, thats where the biggest problem is for the liberals : young people, who tend to be liberal, have school, kids, work, after-work engagements to worry about. Old people, who are overwhelmingly conservative, have no problems standing in line for 4 hours, coz those 4 hours are 'i get to talk to a person who is not my old spouse of 50 years! OMG!'.

 

Btw, the voting process in the US needs to improve. My wife's mom worked the polls this year, in Florida. Its a good thing that she is trilingual, with fluent Spanish, coz except for her, no other poll worker could speak Spanish in a community that is 75% spanish speaking by voter registration and the old spanish grannies had nobody except my in-law to direct them to poll. And most of the other old white ladies didnt give a damn that the 'mexicans' couldn't vote properly.

 

lol i can see the old people voting all the time, totally buy that. But not all young ones are liberal , you see some of them would be the white working class or the hindu middle class depending on the country. And your in law could have had quite a pull on the 'mexicans' lol.

[mishra]

Quote

Its slightly worse in India, but not by much. In India, women have a slightly better time in office environment than in USA, because in India, 'sexual talk/innuendo' is still a major taboo and male colleagues won't just come up to you and comment how your ass looks today. In USA they will.
But USA has more tolerance for women when their husbands abuse them, unlike India.But it is not that much different, really. 

^ In UK, You are Royally F***ed if a women complains against you. If you separate you are SCr***d, They take money, kids and family asset. One phone call, Police is on door. While a man makes a call, Police will come after one month.

I have few divorced friend, Ask them and they find women to be so unfair. I feel they are scarred for life. Career/Salary wise they arent outperforming men. But thats about it. Everything else, they got a better deal. Life is not just about career.

 

 

I am sure, Its same in US. So totally disagree with your comment.

 

Edited November 10, 2016 by mishra

[Muloghonto]

5 minutes ago, mishra said:

^ In UK, You are Royally F***ed if a women complains against you. If you separate you are SCr***d, They take money, kids and family asset. One phone call, Police is on door. While a man makes a call, Police will come after one month.

I have few divorced friend, Ask them and they find women to be so unfair. I feel they are scarred for life. Career/Salary wise they arent outperforming men. But thats about it. Everything else, they got a better deal. Life is not just about career.

 

 

I am sure, Its same in US. So totally disagree with your comment.

 

This is mostly nonsense, since if you call the police hotline to report domestic violence, police will show up, regardless of the gender of the caller.

And no, they don't get the better deal in society- i fail to see how having custody + asking absentee dad to pay for kids upbringing is unfair. 
For every 1 guy who wants to be a single dad after divorce, there are 10+ women who would rather be single moms than not be with their kids.  So what you see unfair, is what most people want anyways. Joint custody is the most common, since most divorced parents want to share responsibilities with the child.

 

And given that sexual harassment from man to woman is atleast 50 times more prevalent than woman to man, i don't blame the authorities for giving more credence to a woman's sob story than a man's.

 

[Texan]

2 hours ago, jalebi_bhai said:

 

Hillary would've been bad news for India and as an Indian citizen, I'm happy she lost more than the fact that Donald won.

I may have missed this part but why was Hillary going to be bad news for India?