Trump's Inaugural Speech

[samsnee]

Wait, I thought Trump wrote his speech? You're telling me that picture he posted of him was fake? Next you'll tell me he didn't really sign all those papers when he said his sons were running his business.

 

[Marvel]

Kind of funny coming from a man who lost the popular vote by several million people.

Literally take New York City and LA County out of the equation (not even the entire states just a city and a county) and Hillary loses by almost 500,000 votes. So that popular vote sniveling really is a useless retort to rely upon.

Since both candidates base their campaigns on winning the Electoral College, not the popular vote, they both campaigned accordingly. Trump spent no time or money in either NY or CA. Using that now to try and de-legitimatize him is asinine.

When you win 90% of the counties in the country you earn the right to speak for those people.

 

[The Overlord]

As far as rating the speech. How bad the speech was really had nothing to do with Trump. The speech writer however, should be fired. That was arguably the worst speech I have ever heard. It seriously sounded like a 12 year old wrote it. It was like they wrote the speech for people with no more than an 8th grade education.

I think Steve Bannon wrote it, it seems around the level of your average Breitbart article.

I bet we will see a ton of Bannon written speeches in the future.

Edit: Yep, it was Bannon:

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.ibt...-by-far-right-figurehead-steve-bannon-1602372

 

[Sithborg]

Marvel, you do realize that the margins he won be in MI, WI, and PA were quite slim, right.

Also, tossing out 2+ million votes is doing some very, very hefty skewing.

 

[Lighthouse]

Literally take New York City and LA County out of the equation (not even the entire states just a city and a county) and Hillary loses by almost 500,000 votes. So that popular vote sniveling really is a useless retort to rely upon.

Since both candidates base their campaigns on winning the Electoral College, not the popular vote, they both campaigned accordingly. Trump spent no time or money in either NY or CA. Using that now to try and de-legitimatize him is asinine.

When you win 90% of the counties in the country you earn the right to speak for those people.

Land mass doesn't vote genius.

 

[samsnee]

Literally take New York City and LA County out of the equation (not even the entire states just a city and a county) and Hillary loses by almost 500,000 votes. So that popular vote sniveling really is a useless retort to rely upon.

Since both candidates base their campaigns on winning the Electoral College, not the popular vote, they both campaigned accordingly. Trump spent no time or money in either NY or CA. Using that now to try and de-legitimatize him is asinine.

When you win 90% of the counties in the country you earn the right to speak for those people.

Oh so only include votes in "real America"

 

[SV Fan]

Oh so only include votes in "real America"

It's sort of funny that the people who claim they are "real America" cry how coastal cities have an elitist attitude.

 

[Matt]

Chuck Todd summed up the inaugural address perfectly:

"[It] will be remembered domestically as the American Carnage Speech with its images of an American wasteland of crime, drugs, and rusted out factories. Around the world it will be remembered as the America First Speech."

So much sad truth to this comment and even sadder that this is a perfectly fair and accurate depiction of the inaugural address of the 45th President of the United States.

 

[InCali]

Marvel, you do realize that the margins he won be in MI, WI, and PA were quite slim, right.

Also, tossing out 2+ million votes is doing some very, very hefty skewing.

After reading the last couple of Marvel's comments, I wouldn't even bother.

Essentially we're being told what could be said in virtually any election, "Take out the largest base of support for a candidate and they will lose." Not exactly an epiphany for people who take the time to think about things in a logical manner.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Literally take New York City and LA County out of the equation (not even the entire states just a city and a county) and Hillary loses by almost 500,000 votes. So that popular vote sniveling really is a useless retort to rely upon.

Since both candidates base their campaigns on winning the Electoral College, not the popular vote, they both campaigned accordingly. Trump spent no time or money in either NY or CA. Using that now to try and de-legitimatize him is asinine.

When you win 90% of the counties in the country you earn the right to speak for those people.

A democracy goes by people, not land. You're thinking of feudalism.

 

[Matt]

Literally take New York City and LA County out of the equation (not even the entire states just a city and a county) and Hillary loses by almost 500,000 votes. So that popular vote sniveling really is a useless retort to rely upon.

Since both candidates base their campaigns on winning the Electoral College, not the popular vote, they both campaigned accordingly. Trump spent no time or money in either NY or CA. Using that now to try and de-legitimatize him is asinine.

When you win 90% of the counties in the country you earn the right to speak for those people.

That argument is an absurd logical fallacy. By your logic, should we eliminate Texas because it is solidly red and has a lot of people? If so, Clinton wins the popular vote by another 800k.

One's vote is not somehow invalid because of where they live or where a candidate campaigned. Trump may not have campaigned in NYC or LA but, honestly, neither did Clinton. The reason being, those two places are solidly blue and no amount of campaigning would've changed that. Just as no amount of Clinton campaigning would've even made even a dent in Trump's votes in Texas and West Virginia.

The reality is this, no matter how much Democrats or Republicans want to claim contrary:

The reality Republicans must accept is that Trump lost the popular vote by an historic margin. That isn't debatable. That is fact. There is no subtracting votes because you don't like where they come from. That is as absurd as saying "the Cleveland Cavs lost every game last year if you don't count LeBron James's baskets." It just doesn't work that way. Nor do you get to say "I would've done it differently if X happened or didn't happen." To go back to my basketball analogy, the Golden State Warriors cannot say "if we knew Draymond Green would get suspended during the NBA finals we would have signed a backup power forward who would've been unable to defend LeBron, but since we didn't do that, the score doesn't count and we are the real NBA champions." Again, it just doesn't work that way. The reality is what it is. And that is Trump lost the popular vote by a huge margin. The end.

The reality Democrats must accept is that it doesn't matter that Trump lost the popular vote. We aren't a pure Republic. We are a representative democracy and by the rules of our system of governance, Trump is President. So long as the states stayed the same, it wouldn't matter if he lost the popular vote by 20 million votes. He won. The end.

 

[SV Fan]

The reality Republicans must accept is that Trump lost the popular vote by an historic margin. That isn't debatable. That is fact.

Yeah but what do the alternative facts say?

 

[Kelly]

ACTUALLY, we are a Constitutional Federal Republic.... If we are going to be technical.

 

[Hotwire]

If you read it like this...

Chapter 1

Mothers and children trapped in poverty in our inner cities; rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation; an education system flush with cash, but which leaves our young and beautiful students deprived of knowledge; and the crime and gangs and drugs that have stolen too many lives and robbed our country of so much unrealized potential.

It reads like a dystopian, post-apocalyptic novel, not a presidential speech.

 

[Morg]

Yeah but what do the alternative facts say?

same thing, just colorful lying and BSing

 

[Wise]

Trump's orating skill leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[InCali]

That argument is an absurd logical fallacy. By your logic, should we eliminate Texas because it is solidly red and has a lot of people? If so, Clinton wins the popular vote by another 800k.

One's vote is not somehow invalid because of where they live or where a candidate campaigned. Trump may not have campaigned in NYC or LA but, honestly, neither did Clinton. The reason being, those two places are solidly blue and no amount of campaigning would've changed that. Just as no amount of Clinton campaigning would've even made even a dent in Trump's votes in Texas and West Virginia.

The reality is this, no matter how much Democrats or Republicans want to claim contrary:

The reality Republicans must accept is that Trump lost the popular vote by an historic margin. That isn't debatable. That is fact. There is no subtracting votes because you don't like where they come from. That is as absurd as saying "the Cleveland Cavs lost every game last year if you don't count LeBron James's baskets." It just doesn't work that way. Nor do you get to say "I would've done it differently if X happened or didn't happen." To go back to my basketball analogy, the Golden State Warriors cannot say "if we knew Draymond Green would get suspended during the NBA finals we would have signed a backup power forward who would've been unable to defend LeBron, but since we didn't do that, the score doesn't count and we are the real NBA champions." Again, it just doesn't work that way. The reality is what it is. And that is Trump lost the popular vote by a huge margin. The end.

The reality Democrats must accept is that it doesn't matter that Trump lost the popular vote. We aren't a pure Republic. We are a representative democracy and by the rules of our system of governance, Trump is President. So long as the states stayed the same, it wouldn't matter if he lost the popular vote by 20 million votes. He won. The end.

Agreed. Now we have to live with it. Hopefully the office will help to make the man.

 

[Matt]

Agreed. Now we have to live with it. Hopefully the office will help to make the man.

Hopefully.

But never the less, the whole argument of "eliminate NYC and LA because Trump didn't campaign there" is logically absurd. Its embarrassing that his supporters are putting such a facetious argument out there, rather than just accepting the reality. I know why Trump and his staff are doing it. He has proven, time and again, how fragile his ego is and that winning EVERYTHING from elections to crowd sizes to TV ratings is extremely important to him. This is a way to protect that fragile ego. But why are his supporters spouting that nonsense? What do they gain from it? If they think about it even a little bit, it really just doesn't make a lick of sense. So they are sacrificing their own intelligence and common sense to protect Trump's ego?

I mean, let's use Trump's logic. He lost New York and California because, according to him, he didn't need those states to win so he didn't campaign in them. His logic is that if he campaigned in those states, he would've picked up enough votes to win the popular vote. Therefore, we shouldn't count traditional blue states in the vote tally.

But doesn't that logic cut both ways? Clinton did not campaign in Texas, Alabama, West Virginia, and other solidly red states because they were not part of her EC path to victory. If she did that, she would've presumably picked up votes (personally, I have my doubts that either would've, this isn't the 1800s where you go from town to town to campaign and the only time voters hear your platform is when you give speeches, this is the digital era, the information is there and physical campaigning is less important than it once was but I digress).

Anyway, if we accept that Trump did not campaign in urban areas because they are solidly blue and he was not trying to win the popular vote, but the EC and that made a difference, we must also accept that Clinton did not campaign in rural areas because they are solidly red and would not make a difference for her.

Let's assume both campaign everywhere. Then don't the results ultimately turn out approximately the same? Trump expends less resources in middle America, loses votes there and presumably gains in urban areas. Clinton in turn expends less resources in urban areas and presumably gains in rural areas. All in all, it would balance out to about the same.

But again, it is really just absurd logic that assumes every voter is up for grabs and that 95 % of votes in urban areas like NYC and LA aren't already set long before the campaign even begins. No matter how many rallies he holds, Trump would not gain much in NYC or LA any more than Clinton would make gains in Texas. It just doesn't add up.

Again, I just don't understand the motivation behind it, coming from his supporters. Like I said, I get it from his staff and surrogates. They have to keep their guy calm and happy and give an image to the public of strength/a mandate that does not exist. But what is the reason for someone like Marvel, whom I assume is a smart guy, to rely on such a logically absurd strawman argument that can be countered so easily with something as simple as "Okay, if you want to take out NYC and LA, let's also nix Texas then because its a Republican stronghold and Clinton didn't campaign there. If you do that, even without NYC and LA, Clinton wins popular vote." The argument just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

So why use it? you guys won by the metric that matters. Why sacrifice your own perceived intelligence with such a silly argument that ultimately means nothing?

 

[Spider-Aziz]

Why am I shocked by this?

 

[Schlosser85]

I replied and told him he's a pathetic man.

 

[Mysteryman]

ACTUALLY, we are a Constitutional Federal Republic.... If we are going to be technical.

Kudos Kelly.
A lot of people incorrectly say that we are a democracy.

 

[Venom'sDad]

This country has not been a fully, 100% Constitutional Republic for decades now...it has been steadily eroding from a Constitutional Republic into some kind of Fascist Republic, control by Corporate Globalist.