Donald Trump

[Hercule Poirot]

Only 43% of the people voted in the US 2016 presidential election! Where did 'We the people' go? Probably went for a Bud or a Coke, quite far away from the generation of heroes!!!

Make me sad, given I was raised in the States.

Hecule Poirot

[GUT]

Only 43% of the people voted in the US 2016 presidential election! Where did 'We the people' go? Probably went for a Bud or a Coke, quite far away from the generation of heroes!!!

Make me sad, given I was raised in the States.

Hecule Poirot

And that's why they can't complain.

If they didn't want him (or her) why not vote?

If they're that apathetic don't protest now.

[Steadmund Brand]

Sadly 43% is a big turnout for U.S. Elections'.....I hate to admit that, but true

Steadmund Brand

[jason_c]

Voter turnout was 57% not 43%.

[Abby Normal]

Not as must as the next one:

Now that's funny!

[Abby Normal]

Voter turnout was 57% not 43%.

Thanks for the correction Jason.
Still down from previous years, but not surprising, seeing how weak the candidates were IMHO.

[Abby Normal]

This report by Ted Koppel about Trump voters in West Virginia is worth watching.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-view...inkId=31103542

very interesting--and telling. thanks for posting.

[Patrick S]

It is entirely your fault when you are more concerned with insulting people than explaining your point, yes.

Interesting, by the way, that you should simply wave me off as "not getting your points" when in the two last paragraphs I asked specifically what your points were. This tells me you didn't even read my post, but didn't want to back out without a parting shot.

No insults intended and I admit it's my fault. I'm not sure what 'parting shot' I took. I should have realized that you had no understanding of the American cultural phenomena that led to Trump's election when you stated that for each celebrity supporting Clinton, filming commercials condemning Trump, creating documentaries condemning Trump, giving interviews condemning Trump, etc., there was an one doing likewise in support of Trump, condemning Clinton. Of course that's absurd and anyone with a modicum of insight into American politics knows that. I don't know where you call home and I don't know your background. I'm certain that I am unable to discuss the intricacies of your nation's culture, political or otherwise, at a level that you'd find interesting. Of course, it would not occur to me to try...but to each his own.

[Karl]

Patrick, when you reply to someone without addressing what they have said, but launch insults instead, that signals that you have no further interest in actual discussion, hence you are backing out. The insult, then, serving no constructive purpose, can only be regarded as a parting shot.

Of course that's absurd and anyone with a modicum of insight into American politics knows that.

That's not an argument. If something is absurd, there is a reason other than "everyone knows it". Let me just ask you this: where does the image of Hillary somehow being corrupt, criminal, crooked etc. come from? It certainly isn't from Hillary's campaign.

[Patrick S]

Patrick, when you reply to someone without addressing what they have said, but launch insults instead, that signals that you have no further interest in actual discussion, hence you are backing out. The insult, then, serving no constructive purpose, can only be regarded as a parting shot.



That's not an argument. If something is absurd, there is a reason other than "everyone knows it". Let me just ask you this: where does the image of Hillary somehow being corrupt, criminal, crooked etc. come from? It certainly isn't from Hillary's campaign.

Sometimes a point is so ridiculous, "everyone knows it" is really all you need. But, hey. You win. I can't argue with you......although, I'm not sure what were arguing about..... I'm not a Trump voter, you accuse me of being the "average Trump voter" because.....I haven't really figured that one out yet. I give my opinion as to what phenomena aligned to put the guy in office, you tell me I'm wrong. Fair enough. You think I'm dead wrong. I don't see where this could possibly go. Nowhere interesting, I think.

[ChrisGeorge]

Perhaps not surprisingly, given Trump's inexperience with government and politics, President Obama will spend extra time prepping Donald Trump to be President.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/leading-contender-for-donald-trump-s-chief-of-staff-is-rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-1479069597

[Mayerling]

Thanks for the correction Jason.
Still down from previous years, but not surprising, seeing how weak the candidates were IMHO.

I have always been fascinated by that running, disparaging stat of how "few" in the electorate of the U.S. actually vote. Usually it pops up from foreign observers, dismissing us all as a sham (and to some extent - such as these two major party candidates - they may be right...but not quite). The American population is, at this time, over 300 million people. The adult population is probably close to 190 million. If 43 % of that electorate vote that would seem to be 43, 700,000 voters turned out to vote for Trump or Hillary.

Excuse, but isn't that number rather more than the populations of most countries - most of which supposedly have voting democracies going on as their governments. I'm concerned about how less than half the electorate voted here, than say in Holland, or Bulgaria or Norway, particularly since the number that did vote here outstrips those countries total individual populations. Yes, it would be nice if we had larger turnout - it is a shame that it is not a larger turnout. But gee, a country with 20 million population has more people voting that one with 43 million or so deciding to vote? Howsat agin?

And what about those countries with stunning success of 100% population voting, with 90% supporting a dictator seeking re-election? That's very frequently found too. Perhaps with Mr. Trump and his backers we may yet end up doing that.

Jeff

[Karl]

Sometimes a point is so ridiculous, "everyone knows it" is really all you need. But, hey. You win. I can't argue with you......although, I'm not sure what were arguing about..... I'm not a Trump voter, you accuse me of being the "average Trump voter" because.....I haven't really figured that one out yet. I give my opinion as to what phenomena aligned to put the guy in office, you tell me I'm wrong. Fair enough. You think I'm dead wrong. I don't see where this could possibly go. Nowhere interesting, I think.

Oh, so that's why you got so defensive. I called you an average Trum-voter because, well, you fit the bill. "I'm no fan of Trump's, but..." Like I said - and I am repeating myself for the umpeenth time here - this election was not about voting for a favourite candidate, but voting against the greater evil. The average Hillary-voter was the same: "I don't like Hillary either, but..."

And no, if you had an argument, you would have presented it, because an actual argument always trumps - no pun intended - derisive remarks devoid of content. "Everyone knows" - might as well have said "yo' mama" for all the gravitas it lends you. To think, you still haven't addressed what I said, but just repeat the same accusations. Let me try the same tactic:

You haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.
What you're suggesting is absurd and everyone knows it.

Were you in any way moved by this rhetoric? Would I have much success if I kept it up?

[Abby Normal]

I have always been fascinated by that running, disparaging stat of how "few" in the electorate of the U.S. actually vote. Usually it pops up from foreign observers, dismissing us all as a sham (and to some extent - such as these two major party candidates - they may be right...but not quite). The American population is, at this time, over 300 million people. The adult population is probably close to 190 million. If 43 % of that electorate vote that would seem to be 43, 700,000 voters turned out to vote for Trump or Hillary.

Excuse, but isn't that number rather more than the populations of most countries - most of which supposedly have voting democracies going on as their governments. I'm concerned about how less than half the electorate voted here, than say in Holland, or Bulgaria or Norway, particularly since the number that did vote here outstrips those countries total individual populations. Yes, it would be nice if we had larger turnout - it is a shame that it is not a larger turnout. But gee, a country with 20 million population has more people voting that one with 43 million or so deciding to vote? Howsat agin?

And what about those countries with stunning success of 100% population voting, with 90% supporting a dictator seeking re-election? That's very frequently found too. Perhaps with Mr. Trump and his backers we may yet end up doing that.

Jeff

Hi mayer

unless I did the math wrong, the US has approx. 250 million people of voting age of which approx. 127 million voted. I think that's in line with approx. 57% voter turnout which is claimed.Its tough though to get exact with these kind of numbers and different sources etc.

And yes, it would be nice if more people here voted, but its never really bothered me. people don't vote for many reasons and its a free country, so theyre also exercising their right to abstain.
I think enough people vote anyway that we get a fair representation of whats up.

But your right-it would be funny if it wasn't so sad that a lot of countries boast of 99% turnout, or whatever,but with only one name on the ballot and a gun to your head.

[Charles Daniels]

I come onto a Jack the Ripper forum and discover people speaking about someone even worse.