• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Trump's victory forever sullied?

Trump won, and his victory, in my opinion, is legitimate, but it appears to me to be a heavily stained victory.

1. Russia, according to both the FBI and CIA, hacked the DNC and RNC and released DNC documents through WikiLeaks in an obvious attempt to undermine the election. Trump, as a joke, even encouraged the Russians during one of his rallies. This has raised numerous questions. Were the Russians aiding Trump? Were they colluding with his campaign? Do they now have RNC documents to hold over Trump's head? Trump's adamant denial that Russia was even involved and his selection of a very pro Russian nominee for Secretary of State is not helping to belay concerns.

2. The Director of the FBI released information 11 days before the election that it was looking at new e-mails that may be connected to the ones that had been on Clinton's server. There was an immediate drop in the polls for Clinton. No new evidence was found but the damage was done, and the impression was an acting director of the FBI had interfered in the political process.

3. Fake News sites, albeit seen by only a small audience, were being shared across social media suggesting that Clinton was involved in everything from murder to child exploitation.

4. Trump lost the popular vote by 2.7 million votes. Some of his supporters simultaneously argue his victory was legitimate and the election was rigged by claiming, with no evidence that "3 million illegals" voted in the election, a number that changed in accordance with by how much Trump was losing in the popular vote as it was reported. Trump claims an "electoral landslide" even though he ranks 46th in 58 elections on electoral vote. After months of decrying the election process as rigged and the electoral college as faulty, Trump is forced to defend it.

What is clear is Trump does not have anything close to a mandate. He may have won, but he and his supporters will never know whether it was his message or the political interference that clinched the victory for him. While it may be irrelevant to many Trump supporters, it is important to remember that many of the factors that led to their anger could now begin to fuel the anger of the majority of voters who had not voted for Trump. If Trump does not build bridges then his legacy shall be dismantled in 4 to 8 years as surely as he will begin to dismantle Obama's legacy.

Take out the California popular vote number and Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million. The leftist State of California does not determine whether Trump has a mandate or not. The other 99% of the country does.

Anyway, your left-wing talking points...intelligently dismissed by all but the left-wing nut-jobs...do not cause Trump's victory to be tainted, except in the minds of those same nut-jobs of course. The bulk of our country is very pleased that he won.

btw, I should add that a large number of the nut-jobs didn't even vote...for anybody. Those guys are irrelevant to the condition of Trump's victory.
 
I am interested to see how/if he follows through with working with people in the black community to bring about some form of positive change or if the meetings have all been flash.

This is key. I read a few interviews with people across the rust belt. These are people who voted for Obama wanting change but felt left behind and disappointed. They hope Trump will actually deliver "change". More Carrier type deals won't cut it for those folks. They want an economy that works for them. Whether anyone can create that is a big question, and whether Trump even tries is another.
 
This is key. I read a few interviews with people across the rust belt. These are people who voted for Obama wanting change but felt left behind and disappointed. They hope Trump will actually deliver "change". More Carrier type deals won't cut it for those folks. They want an economy that works for them. Whether anyone can create that is a big question, and whether Trump even tries is another.
If he is successful then there will be positive change for many people. If he doesnt even try, he will absolutely deserve scorn and ridicule. He should by all means be held accountable for his actions as president. Laughably...rats are already lining up to impeach the man before he ever has so much as taken office.
 
That 75% is a red herring. An absurd number of people sit out every election, and when you subtract those the remainder renders the point silly.

I would say that while Trump has no mandate in terms of popular will (that would mean a large majority voted for him and his platform - whatever people thought that really was), Trump ran as a Republican. Republicans have complete control of the government, including the SCOTUS. They can ram whatever they really want through.

What scares me is the thought of Trump making a deal with the Repubs whereby he rubber stamps every partisan wish list item they have in exchange for them looking the other way while he uses the office to enrich himself.

You mean to say that you think they'll be as arrogantly anti constitutional as the liberal bigots have been? You're funning me,right?
 
Absurd. The "left". You are talking about a small handful of people who are engaged in the hopeless task of swaying electors to vote for anyone but Trump. So what? John Kasich gets to be the president? Big coup! Lol.

Your concerns make little sense. The Republican controlled House would ultimately get to pick if Trump were somehow denied enough electoral college votes. They would most likely still pick Trump.

Then where is the Left speaking out against this coup attempt? Hmmmm???
 
Do you know what they call the man who graduates last in his class from medical school?



The same thing they call all the others... "Doctor".



Billy boy never won the popular vote either.
 
Interestingly, there seems to be no alleged hacking of the Republican's communications.Are they smarter in their security planning, or is it that nobody cared?
Either that or the guy (Putin) that said he supports the GOP nominee (Trump) wanted to eviscerate Hillary and build up Trump. The whole thing looks suspicious with Putin and it doesn't look good that Trump commends the guy all the time as well as appoint people with close ties to the Russian leader.
 
Either that or the guy (Putin) that said he supports the GOP nominee (Trump) wanted to eviscerate Hillary and build up Trump. The whole thing looks suspicious with Putin and it doesn't look good that Trump commends the guy all the time as well as appoint people with close ties to the Russian leader.

Could be, but I have why Putin would prefer Trump, who has shown no inclination to be bought, over Hillary, who obviously can.
 
Trump needs to do none of that which you suggest. If anything needs to be done, and not necessarily by Trump, it is to recognize the fact that all countries with the ability to do so are listening in on all other countries communications, especially when their own interests are involved.

Second, recognize the fact that private communication in this new IT world is not all that secure. Obama was caught in an open mike conversation stating he would have more latitude after the election. Hillary apparently stored her backup to her private not secure server on a computer shared by a pervert and her assistant. Neither was a wise decision. Interestingly, there seems to be no alleged hacking of the Republican's communications. Are they smarter in their security planning, or is it that nobody cared?

You want private, bring back the smoke filled rooms, or conduct your business one on one on the back lots of airports.

The RNC was hacked but it appears they were stopped by a simple spam filter. The method they used relied on getting an e-mail into an inbox and they appear to have focused on only one RNC staffer.
 
You and your wet dreams. He has all the Mandat he needs. And 25 percent being enough to win seems more like only few people care. So stop blowing nasty hate and be constructive. I know it's tough on the losers. But sour grapes will only pucker the mouth, which doesn't look dignified.

You are reacting and it is not pretty. You can concede the obvious reality, that most voters did not support Trump, and not have to feel any less joyous about your victory. You are being ugly and actually proving how sensitive you are to the stain that has been left on his win.
 
I think he will set about doing things as he knows how regardless of whether or not the people support him. Throughout the election, the GOP didnt embrace him. Working against opposition wont be anything new.

I am interested to see how/if he follows through with working with people in the black community to bring about some form of positive change or if the meetings have all been flash.

Trump seems interested in running his administration like a reality TV show so...flash will probably be a constant.
 
No Trump's victory is not sullied any more than Obama's victory was sullied by fake birth certificate and secret muslims claims or Bush's victory sullied by claims of stealing the election,lying for war or going awol.Most people know that when someone wins the losers throw a fit. Partisan hacks in the FBI and CIA making up **** doesn't prove anything other than the fact they put partisanship above doing their jobs.

It is sad. Many people in the FBI and the CIA put their lives on the line to protect you and your way of life and because they reach conclusions you don't like about the role Russia played in hacking the DNC they are now just making up stuff and not doing their jobs. You sure it is the FBI and CIA that is putting partisanship first, because it seems more likely to me that is what you are doing.
 
Trump won, and his victory, in my opinion, is legitimate, but it appears to me to be a heavily stained victory.

1. Russia, according to both the FBI and CIA, hacked the DNC and RNC and released DNC documents through WikiLeaks in an obvious attempt to undermine the election. Trump, as a joke, even encouraged the Russians during one of his rallies. This has raised numerous questions. Were the Russians aiding Trump? Were they colluding with his campaign? Do they now have RNC documents to hold over Trump's head? Trump's adamant denial that Russia was even involved and his selection of a very pro Russian nominee for Secretary of State is not helping to belay concerns.


Incorrect, the fbi and cIA are not on the same page, we have not seen any ACTUAL evidence.

The RNC states there was attempted hacks, but no penetration. which sullies your whole "russia for trump" talking point you were handed here.


2. The Director of the FBI released information 11 days before the election that it was looking at new e-mails that may be connected to the ones that had been on Clinton's server. There was an immediate drop in the polls for Clinton. No new evidence was found but the damage was done, and the impression was an acting director of the FBI had interfered in the political process.


So, who's at fault, the person reporting honestly what they found, in a timely matter, or the crook who set up the illegal server in the first place?



3. Fake News sites, albeit seen by only a small audience, were being shared across social media suggesting that Clinton was involved in everything from murder to child exploitation.


a bunch of bull****. this is spoonfed propaganda from the msm REAL fake news peddlers like the NY times.


4. Trump lost the popular vote by 2.7 million votes. Some of his supporters simultaneously argue his victory was legitimate and the election was rigged by claiming, with no evidence that "3 million illegals" voted in the election, a number that changed in accordance with by how much Trump was losing in the popular vote as it was reported. Trump claims an "electoral landslide" even though he ranks 46th in 58 elections on electoral vote. After months of decrying the election process as rigged and the electoral college as faulty, Trump is forced to defend it.

Almost all of them were in california, california alone should not decide the presidency, we are a republic of several states, not a direct democracy.


206 to 232 is a pretty bigh margin.



What is clear is Trump does not have anything close to a mandate. He may have won, but he and his supporters will never know whether it was his message or the political interference that clinched the victory for him. While it may be irrelevant to many Trump supporters, it is important to remember that many of the factors that led to their anger could now begin to fuel the anger of the majority of voters who had not voted for Trump. If Trump does not build bridges then his legacy shall be dismantled in 4 to 8 years as surely as he will begin to dismantle Obama's legacy.



I think he will build bridges, it will be your ilk who shut him out.

mark it.
 
Did Obama do anything to build bridges to the people that didn't vote for him?

Nope. And where did it get him? You just made the exact argument that I have been making. Trump better learn from what Obama did wrong and not make the same mistakes or face a shellacking when the 64 million who didn't vote for him have their say again.
 
Do you know what they call the man who graduates last in his class from medical school?



The same thing they call all the others... "Doctor".



Billy boy never won the popular vote either.

Huh? Bill Clinton won the popular vote both times. There have been 4 times (now 5) that the President elect lost the popular vote and Bill was never one of them. Those that did are named Adams, Hayes, Harrison, GW Bush and now Trump who lost by more than any of the others.Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org
 
If Trump is able to make progress in getting the nations house in order, he will get another four years, plus the make up of the house and senate will become more republican, and the democrats will become more estranged from the "center". Yes. They will be able to see Hell from their doorsteps.

The democrats have indicated they plan to be the "party of NO", so the fights will be public, drawn out, and partisan, and they will lose in the House due to sheer numbers and in the Senate because they don't have the votes thanks to Harry Reid. So all they can do is try to undermine Trump. But it's different this time. It's a change election, and that means the democrats have to undermine "change" with a corrupt and exposed MSM as their spokesmen. Good luck with that.

Biden was out there sniveling about "we love the white working class" and the "rural families who go to church". Sure Joe. It's sinking in, ain't it? Priceless.

Sooo...

Trump has momentum going in, and he is going to attack American's many problems with market based solutions - cutting taxes, getting business up and running and most importantly - hiring. It's a slow slog to change the course of a nation, but he is hiring the right people to get it done. Obama hired academics, Trump is hiring hands on professionals with track records in the real physical world.

I hope he does so well, you skeptics actually will vote for him.

They have been guarding secrets for years. Formulas, financials, etc.

I remember Democrats being that arrogant in 2008. Let me know how that works out for you.
 
Huh? Bill Clinton won the popular vote both times. There have been 4 times (now 5) that the President elect lost the popular vote and Bill was never one of them. Those that did are named Adams, Hayes, Harrison, GW Bush and now Trump who lost by more than any of the others.Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org



Bill Clinton never won a majority of the popular vote, just a plurality.

Clinton won the 1992 presidential election (43.0 percent of the vote) against Republican incumbent George H. W. Bush (37.4 percent of the vote) and billionaire populist Ross Perot, who ran as an independent (18.9 percent of the vote)
...In the 1996 presidential election, Clinton was re-elected, receiving 49.2 percent of the popular vote over Republican Bob Dole (40.7 percent of the popular vote) and Reform candidate Ross Perot (8.4 percent of the popular vote),


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton



Had it not been for the Electoral College, a run-off (between Bill Clinton and the Republican) would have been necessary.
 
Huh? Bill Clinton won the popular vote both times. There have been 4 times (now 5) that the President elect lost the popular vote and Bill was never one of them. Those that did are named Adams, Hayes, Harrison, GW Bush and now Trump who lost by more than any of the others.Presidents Winning Without Popular Vote - FactCheck.org
I think the point they were trying to make was that Bill Clinton never won the majority (50%+) of the popular vote, but instead... a plurality. It's semantics though. The popular vote is what it is, and the EC is what it is.
 
If he is successful then there will be positive change for many people. If he doesnt even try, he will absolutely deserve scorn and ridicule. He should by all means be held accountable for his actions as president. Laughably...rats are already lining up to impeach the man before he ever has so much as taken office.

Trump supporters are already proving they will never hold him accountable for anything. His job is to find them scapegoats to direct their anger towards. It's the illegals fault! It's the Chinese! It's the media! He will be a boon for the wealthiest Americans and will expand the gap between Wall Street and Main Street. They will line up to vote for him again because the brand is greater than the man. By the time they figure out that nothing has changed but the wealthy getting wealthier, the damage will have been done. There will be no middle class.
 
I think the point they were trying to make was that Bill Clinton never won the majority (50%+) of the popular vote, but instead... a plurality. It's semantics though. The popular vote is what it is, and the EC is what it is.


More than semantics. Absent the Electoral College, a run off would have been necessary to determine the winner, and no one can say what the outcome of that would have been.
 
Trump supporters are already proving they will never hold him accountable for anything. His job is to find them scapegoats to direct their anger towards. It's the illegals fault! It's the Chinese! It's the media! He will be a boon for the wealthiest Americans and will expand the gap between Wall Street and Main Street. They will line up to vote for him again because the brand is greater than the man. By the time they figure out that nothing has changed but the wealthy getting wealthier, the damage will have been done. There will be no middle class.
"Trump supporters" are no different than their ideological twins, the leftist supporters of whoever the rat party nominates or has a D next to their name. You should and probably do realize that there is comparatively a handful percentage wise of both. The majority of people that voted for Trump voted against Clinton, just as the majority of Clinton voters voted against Trump. Perhaps we should wait til after he is actually officially 'elected' and inaugurated before we look for excuses to declare him a failure. And if you are ALREADY doing that? Well...you know which group you fit in at least.
 
You can always tell who the partisans are because their definition of what a "mandate" is changes based on who won. :)
 
More than semantics. Absent the Electoral College, a run off would have been necessary to determine the winner, and no one can say what the outcome of that would have been.
But we're not absent the Electoral College... which is precisely why it's semantics.
 
The RNC was hacked but it appears they were stopped by a simple spam filter. The method they used relied on getting an e-mail into an inbox and they appear to have focused on only one RNC staffer.

I believe you are correct. What does it say about the DNC staff? I get a few of those every day. I remove without opening.

But doesn't that shoot a hole in the argument that Russia was targeting the DNC to help Trump?
 
I think the point they were trying to make was that Bill Clinton never won the majority (50%+) of the popular vote, but instead... a plurality. It's semantics though. The popular vote is what it is, and the EC is what it is.

And the EC prevails.
 
Back
Top Bottom