A new US President-elect

[Puffer]

I have little interest in US politics or the circus that surrounds the election process but today's news of Donald J. Trump as President-elect is, at the very least, a worrying development.   And, speaking of 'circus', the following seems apt (with apologies to 'Nellie the Elephant'):

Hill’ry the Candidate packed her trunk

And said goodbye to the voters

Off she went - with a new President:

Trump, Trump, Trump.

[FastFreddy2]

Well, who thought the Brexit (Leavers) were going to win either? Certainly been a year for political surprises.

 

Tensions in the Middle East having been growing worse over the past months, with sabre rattling going on from both sides. Clinton is like her predecessors, an imperialist. Trump doesn't appear to be, and has a good personal relationship with Putin. If ever there looked to be a WWIII, I would back Trump to avoid it over Clinton. As an American taxi driver put it (and I paraphrase) "Over here, I have to drink dirt water, over there I have to drink dirt water also, wherever I look, dirty water". If the Democrats hadn't backed Clinton thinking she was practically 'gold plated' to win, and had put Bernie Sanders on the ticket instead, when Trump's past arrived for a public airing, Bernie Sanders could have stopped canvassing and still won. With her record of defending a rapist she knew to be a rapist, and keeping all her electronic correspondence away from governmental oversight (and security), the voting public decided Trump was less toxic than Clinton.

I am shocked that Trump won, but .... Immigration and religious wars are as big an issue in America as they are in the UK (and Europe). If someone stands up and says they will keep your country looking and feeling like it always did, no-one should be surprised if that person subsequently gets a lot of votes.

It's a shame the "Obamacare" package is going to be removed. More than once I have read about even (very) wealthy people in the US becoming destitute due to a serious illness in the family. I would have thought enough people benefited from that alone, to have ensured a Democrat win? Clinton was obviously, just not a popular candidate.

 

>> Toxic Clintons <<

There is probably similar 'dirty water' around Trump. He's a multiple-bankrupt businessman, and I remember reading somewhere he was once bailed out by the US government because to not bail him out, would have had catastrophic consequences to the US economy. As I have written elsewhere, he's a narcissistic bully, who treats women as chattels. But the American voting public were inclined to chose him over the even more toxic Clinton. 

Edited November 10, 2016 by FastFreddy2
Link added.

[Tacchi Alti]

Like Puffer, I'm not really interested in US politics (or British ones, come to that) but Trump's victory has certainly caused a stir, and it was immediately likened to Brexit. Personally I think there are two types of people in this world - ordinary people and politicians - so to me the latter are all as bad as each other, but if Trump is to be believed, he might be a better ally for us than Clinton would have been. Whether he wears heels though has not been disclosed, so far as I know... ;-)

Oh, I love that picture with Trump printed on one line and Pence on the next. Doesn't he know it should be Cents, or is this evidence of his anglophilia?

[Puffer]

11 hours ago, Russ in boots said:

... Oh, I love that picture with Trump printed on one line and Pence on the next. Doesn't he know it should be Cents, or is this evidence of his anglophilia?

I believe that Americans generally refer to one-cent coins as 'pennies' - but where did that come from if it wasn't good ole England?

[FastFreddy2]

Epilogue:

>> Clinton got more votes than Trump <<

Al Gore suffered the same problem in 2000. >> One of four to win popular vote, but not the Presidency <<

When constituencies (electoral college) have different volumes of voters, some with extremely different sizes, it skews what we laughingly call 'democracy'. Everyone assumes, the person (or party) with the most votes will win. Nope.

I don't like the 'first past the post' electoral system, which was devised for the benefit of a two party competition. To put that into perspective for British politics (on which the American system is loosely based) ..... UKIP polled 3.88M votes (12.6%) at the last general election and got 1 MP. The Lib Dems (I know, who?) Polled 2.41M votes (7.9%) and got 8 MP's. The SNP got just 1.45M votes (4.7%)  and got 56 MP's. So UKIP got the same amount of the "popular vote" as did the SNP and Lib Dems combined for 1 MP, where the other two parties got 64 MP's between them.

 

You begin to understand (only taken me 16 years) why George Bush was reputed to be the runner-up who got the Presidency, and why people are protesting across America, that "Trump didn't actually win" either. Seemingly, he too was the runner-up.