phanto, I'm undecided about the majority vote part. On the count of votes Trump didn't get a majority but won because of the way the Electoral College system is set up (to try and ensure the less populous states don't get completely swamped by the North East and West coast votes). I have seen plenty to suggest that there was likely to be a lot of dodgy votes cast, from the "safe cities" programs to protect illegal emigrants, the Veritas videos and discussion of busing (or car pooling) significant voters around to vote where they were not entitled to etc. Not sure we will ever know just what the numbers of cheat votes were. What's also clear is that a lot of voters didn't bother to vote.

The mainstream media certainly called it wrong and still play the game. My understanding is that most indicators are that there was a smaller turnout for Trump's inauguration than Obama's but the New Your Times tweet comparing crowds using what I gather was a shot taken not long after the gates opened for Trumps inauguration compared to the full house period for Obama was a great demonstration of how little they have learned. The CNN Gigapixel image from Trumps inauguration tells a different story.

R0bert

runner,

Could you point me to an occasion where I engaged in bullying? Or was that just an attempt at deflect with the tu quoque fallacy?

You do highlight the point my vulgar-sounding comment was supposed to convey very well, though. You lot will overlook, excuse, or downplay any behaviour, no matter how shocking or depraved, so long as it comes from someone with whom you are politically aligned.

--

phanto,

Given that I clearly wasn't serious, I do wonder what the point of your post to me was.

And yeah, R0bert's right. Hillary Clinton received about 5 million more votes than Trump. It was a quirk of the system that got him over the line, not a majority.

AJ Phillips:

"Given that I clearly wasn't serious"

Why do you need to tell us that you were not serious then if it is so clear?

Why not just ask me what the point of my post was? You don't have to explain the reason for your question unless of course you are insecure about the reason why you are asking the question. Perhaps you are not sure yourself that you were not serious.

Foxy,

I'm struggling to see a specific point in your post or your link. The Republicans have had a majority in the congress and senate for a while, but not a President. They may have to work under a new paradigm that they not familiar with, but having a Republican President, congress, senate, and a majority of state governors is hardly a hand brake on their ambitions.

phanto,

What makes you think I felt a need?

<<Why do you need to tell us that you were not serious then if it is so clear?>>

I wasn’t telling anyone anything. Noting that I wasn’t serious was a lead-in to a reasonable curiosity regarding what your point could have possibly been.

Your amateur psychology flops once again.

Why do you feel the need to ask me why I felt an alleged need to tell people that I wasn’t serious if you did not feel that a deep-down desire to sexually assault women in such a way had been legitimised by Trump's election?

Hmmm?!

<<Why not just ask me what the point of my post was?>>

Because expressing it the way I did made the apparent pointlessness of your post clearer. It’s called “effective communication”. But it appears now, given this latest post of yours, that you were trying to fool any onlookers (and perhaps even yourself) into thinking that I might have been serious.

How pathetic.

I have noted several times in the past that your amateur psychology is nothing more than an attempt to slander others through implication and then damn them whether they choose to defend themselves or not; it’s an attempt to shut your opponents up when you don't like what they're saying.

Thank you for yet another example of that.

Thank you also for demonstrating once again that it is only you who is the fraud here (having once pretended to be concerned about the sincerity of those posting on OLO, while claiming there was a fraudulence on my behalf).

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=7426#229225

<<You don't have to explain the reason for your question …>>

I know. That’s why I didn’t.

<<Perhaps you are not sure yourself that you were not serious.>>

Why would you ponder this unless you were feeling uncomfortable with a realisation that you want to commit sexual assault and that Trump’s election vindicates this deep desire?

This amateur psychology of yours is great fun! Any assumption works and you can use it to slander anyone no matter what they say!

Dear Shadow Minister,

The whole point of my post and the link was
to illustrate what to expect with the new
president. "Expect the unexpected."
Nothing is certain in the political arena -
and predicting the future is risky at the best of times.
We'll have to simply wait on see what develops next.
I very much doubt that Mr Trump will not be constrained
politically in certain areas both by Congress and the
Courts. Or rather I should say - fingers-crossed that
this is the case for the sake of us all - Americans
included.