We Are Yet Again Repeating the History of Bigotry

[vegetariantaxidermy]

1: Since Trump lost the popular vote, then it is false that out of those who voted, most liked Trump. For that to be true, Trump would have had to win the popular vote, and he lost the popular vote by a large margin. Less than 25% of Americans are Trumpers. The vast majority of Americans dislike him, and he has even set record low popularity levels, far below that of any other president in history.

Even bigger idiots than we thought, voting for someone they hate.

[-1-]

Why do you feel so strongly that George Bush was anti-semantic? Can you give me some examples? Not that I'm arguing against it, I'm just genuinely curious. I've only gotten into politics semi recently.

You had to listen to his speeches. He couldn't put a reg'lar sentence together properly. He bundled, and mixed up metaphors. All I remember (my rote memory is horribly poor), is that when he travelled to South America, he made a remark, "I wish I had learned Latin in school, so I could speak the local languages here, in Latin America." His semantics were not only abhorrent, but very funny indeed. He was definitely an anti-semant. A true and proper anti-semant.

[-1-]

1: Since Trump lost the popular vote, then it is false that out of those who voted, most liked Trump. For that to be true, Trump would have had to win the popular vote, and he lost the popular vote by a large margin.

The only other person who possibly could have won the popular vote (since only two were running in the final stage of the election) was Hillary. Did she?

[Science Fan]

Yes, she did. By a wide margin. And keep in mind, she is extremely unpopular in the USA as well. Basically, Trump lost the popular vote to one of the most despised politicians of all time, who was only nominated because the Democrats rigged their primary nomination process in her favor. Almost any other Republican would have won by double digits against her.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Why do you feel so strongly that George Bush was anti-semantic? Can you give me some examples? Not that I'm arguing against it, I'm just genuinely curious. I've only gotten into politics semi recently.

You had to listen to his speeches. He couldn't put a reg'lar sentence together properly. He bundled, and mixed up metaphors. All I remember (my rote memory is horribly poor), is that when he travelled to South America, he made a remark, "I wish I had learned Latin in school, so I could speak the local languages here, in Latin America." His semantics were not only abhorrent, but very funny indeed. He was definitely an anti-semant. True and proper anti-semant.

Yanks don't give a damn about English, in fact bad English is admired and good English is derided as 'snot-nosed 'Brit' talk'. I was watching the figure skating and the American announcer said after one performance 'She is very expressionable'. They do that sort of crap all the time.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Yes, she did. By a wide margin. And keep in mind, she is extremely unpopular in the USA as well. Basically, Trump lost the popular vote to one of the most despised politicians of all time, who was only nominated because the Democrats rigged their primary nomination process in her favor. Almost any other Republican would have won by double digits against her.

I wouldn't mind a 'Groundhog Day' to relive that election and her face at the inauguration.

[Science Fan]

1: Basically, most Americans would have preferred voting for someone else besides Hillary or Trump, which is why there was such a low voter turnout. Game theory explains Trump's nomination despite him being disliked. He was the only extremist candidate running among a lot of candidates that were all fairly moderate. So, the moderate votes were spread out among a lot of candidates, while Trump got the vote of all the extremists in the party. This typically happens in state primaries where an extreme candidate runs against a large field of more moderate candidates --- the winner is almost always the extremist, despite the vast majority of party members not wanting that candidate to win. This is why parties should hold run-off elections, which would remedy the problem. The problem, however, is so rare in national elections, that run-offs aren't held because of the cost not being warranted in most circumstances.

Hillary's win can be explained by the fact she literally controlled the Democratic party financially, and she had a huge number of delegate votes before the first primary was even held ---- a clear message for people not to run against her. The party also would award most of the primary votes to Hillary, even in cases where Sanders won the majority of votes in a state primary. For this reason, a lot of Democrats voted for Trump --- solely as a protest against how the Democratic party manipulated its primary.

Anyway, you had two unusual circumstances coming into play, and as a result, we ended up with two extremely unpopular candidates running for president. The majority of Americans hated both of them.