Thanks Wisconsin! (Milwaukee, Clinton, Washington: how much, houses, unemployment)

[thefragile]

Originally Posted by SouthernTiger099

It's statements like yours that are part of the reason that Hillary lost. Generalization an entire section of people as mentally damaged. I'm one of those supporters, and i ain't mentally damaged.

Another reason she lost, is because people are tired of the Democrats pulling their crap.

I stand by what I said. And by the way, she won the popular vote so no, people are not tired of democrats.

[SouthernTiger]

Originally Posted by thefragile

I stand by what I said. And by the way, she won the popular vote so no, people are not tired of democrats.

She may have won the popular vote...but the electoral votes say otherwise. And yes, a lot of people are actually tired of the Democrats, despite that.

And the results ain't changing. Plus, Trump's actually picking up votes in the Wisconsin recount. Thank you, Jill.

[JimmyInGreatLakes]

Originally Posted by TRlaura

I can't believe the good people got this one right! The Marquette polls and all others were wrong. Madison got a firm kick in the butt. Nice job voters!

Sorry, late to this party but this Michigander thanks our western neighbor (which was called much sooner than Michigan) as well. I love the Midwest and enjoy it turning Red again (we'll leave Illinois blue just for old times' sake). I thought it impossible really but after seeing so many more Trump signs this year than Romney in 2012, I started to believe just a little bit that a miracle could happen.

[MaseMan]

I'm curious what the Trump supporters posting in this thread think Trump will do that will actually be positive for Wisconsin. It would be nice to hear some real answers, not just more, "rah rah rah, go Trump, MAGA!", stuff.

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by MaseMan

I'm curious what the Trump supporters posting in this thread think Trump will do that will actually be positive for Wisconsin. It would be nice to hear some real answers, not just more, "rah rah rah, go Trump, MAGA!", stuff.

It would probably hard to claim specifics for any state.

Benefits for the country as a whole hopefully are:
1. reduced regulations (helpful to farmers, business and individuals which WI has),
2. increased emphasis on business growth and more jobs. (could be good for WI as it has a strong manufacturing base),
3. less government intrusion into life in general and a more constitution based, limited government as opposed to a more oppressive, liberal progressive gov't where gov't bureaucracies have free run. (Frees people up to pursue life , liberty and happiness)
4. More emphasis on school choice and further de-emphasis on public education which has proven to be bad for the country as these public institutions have moved away from their primary function (education)
5. Increased standing as world leader which current Administration destroyed. (Could increase trade for WI business and open new markets)

These are just a few of the benefits a state like WI could enjoy.

For other states with more natural resources, a strong energy policy will be good for them as producers and may help WI business as it can increase access to affordable energy.

In short, emphasis on things that actually make sense to make country, world and lives better.
Less emphasis on silly progressive things like racism, sexism, global warming. Things that are overplayed, sometimes blatantly false and only further the agendas of a very few.

Hope that helps clarify benefits.

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

4. More emphasis on school choice and further de-emphasis on public education which has proven to be bad for the country as these public institutions have moved away from their primary function (education)

In what way has public education been "proven" to be "bad"? It has been the bedrock of mass literacy in this country for decades. Also, K-12 school systems are primarily under local control, so what constitutes "education" (academics, college-prep, vo-tech, etc.) varies from district to district.

Or are you referring to the emphasis on sports in many communities? (Many of them in Trump Country.) Or the idea that some districts provide meals to students who come from poverty?

In short, emphasis on things that actually make sense to make country, world and lives better.
Less emphasis on silly progressive things like racism, sexism, global warming. Things that are overplayed, sometimes blatantly false and only further the agendas of a very few.

Hope that helps clarify benefits.

Why would you consider issues dealing with the treatment of women, blacks, and other groups to be silly? I see that just as an extension of old-fashioned civics lessons that our ancestors had decades ago, except now it's legal for blacks to learn how to read and write, and it's socially acceptable for women to have lives at the levels that men have had.

It's part of that "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing you mentioned

Global warming is understood via science, and has much to do with all earthlings (hence "global"). Do you believe that science doesn't have a role in improving the lives of people?

[ccjarider]

Originally Posted by Empidonax

In what way has public education been "proven" to be "bad"? It has been the bedrock of mass literacy in this country for decades. Also, K-12 school systems are primarily under local control, so what constitutes "education" (academics, college-prep, vo-tech, etc.) varies from district to district.

Or are you referring to the emphasis on sports in many communities? (Many of them in Trump Country.) Or the idea that some districts provide meals to students who come from poverty?



Why would you consider issues dealing with the treatment of women, blacks, and other groups to be silly? I see that just as an extension of old-fashioned civics lessons that our ancestors had decades ago, except now it's legal for blacks to learn how to read and write, and it's socially acceptable for women to have lives at the levels that men have had.

It's part of that "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" thing you mentioned

Global warming is understood via science, and has much to do with all earthlings (hence "global"). Do you believe that science doesn't have a role in improving the lives of people?

Actually, I do think these topics are worthy of debate and possible mitigation activities.

I believe Trump voters though want these topics to be less emphasized and more action taken on important topics like energy, business and growth. These soft topics that will never go away because, as we have discussed before, there will always be examples in a country of hundreds of millions of people.

I think the key thing here is that an Administration HAS to establish priorities. Government cannot do everything. Hell - it can barely do a few things. Enough voters in the right states, have determined that the country needs to move with a different set of priorities than Obama established. That is a good thing because Obama did very little for this country and in many cases did a lot of damage.

Fortunately, I believe the country is bigger than one bad President.

As a side note: Man made global warming is NOT proven science.

[Empidonax]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

Actually, I do think these topics are worthy of debate and possible mitigation activities.

I believe Trump voters though want these topics to be less emphasized and more action taken on important topics like energy, business and growth. These soft topics that will never go away because, as we have discussed before, there will always be examples in a country of hundreds of millions of people.

I think the key thing here is that an Administration HAS to establish priorities. Government cannot do everything. Hell - it can barely do a few things. Enough voters in the right states, have determined that the country needs to move with a different set of priorities than Obama established. That is a good thing because Obama did very little for this country and in many cases did a lot of damage.

If Obama had been able to run for a third term, he probably would have won.

I think that a lot of what we're seeing in electoral politics these days has more to do with disgust about establishment, status quo politicians (Dems and Republicans) and a desire for anti-establishment "change." After 8 years in office, Obama is not as fresh and innovative as he was at the start, but many still consider him to be an effective "change agent" on the scene.

Fortunately, I believe the country is bigger than one bad President.

We'll see in the next four years, I suppose.

As a side note: Man made global warming is NOT proven science.

Something like 97% of all climate scientists believe that humans have had and continue to have some role in climate change. The percentage goes up closer to 100% when the "best" climate scientists (those with more peer-reviewed studies, those considered leaders in the field, etc.) are specifically considered. This signals a very strong consensus on the matter.

Of course, that doesn't mean the case is settled for all eternity. Science is not about "facts," but rather about the exercise of field-approved methods in order to confirm or question prevailing understandings. Even the most ardent climate change scientists know that scientific data and evidence are only as good as the people who work with them, so it is important to allow for doubt and skepticism. But that doesn't mean that the doubters and skeptics are correct; it means that they have a voice and an opportunity to argue on behalf of their case. In the meantime, if the overwhelming majority of climate scientists are correct in believing that humans have at least some role in climate change, then now is the moment to do something about it. It isn't like trying to determine if dinosaurs had scales versus feathers--that debate can probably rage for decades without leaving humanity hanging in the balance.

[ccjarider]

While it cannot ever be proven, I have no doubt that Obama would have lost the electoral vote if he could have run. Fortunately, we never have to face that question.

I am at a loss as to how anyone would see the man as an effective change agent. He destroyed his party; helped foster growth of terrorism; set economic growth back years; created a divisive, toxic culture and looked with disdain on America. He was an ineffective leader, able to only get a few things through congress. Most of what he has tried was via executive order.

Fortunately Americans saw this and because of his lack of true change ability, we can easily undo the damage he caused. He will go down as a footnote of uselessness in US history.

Any affects of man on global warming are easily mitigated or enhanced with a 10000 year period of solar activity or quiet. It is pompous to think that the 100 years of man's industrial activity has negatively affected this planet, which has been around for millions of years.

It is a great scam though - "Don't you love the planet? Give us control and $ and we will do our best to assure your planet stays safe."

[thefragile]

Originally Posted by ccjarider

While it cannot ever be proven, I have no doubt that Obama would have lost the electoral vote if he could have run. Fortunately, we never have to face that question.

I am at a loss as to how anyone would see the man as an effective change agent. He destroyed his party; helped foster growth of terrorism; set economic growth back years; created a divisive, toxic culture and looked with disdain on America. He was an ineffective leader, able to only get a few things through congress. Most of what he has tried was via executive order.

Fortunately Americans saw this and because of his lack of true change ability, we can easily undo the damage he caused. He will go down as a footnote of uselessness in US history.

Any affects of man on global warming are easily mitigated or enhanced with a 10000 year period of solar activity or quiet. It is pompous to think that the 100 years of man's industrial activity has negatively affected this planet, which has been around for millions of years.

It is a great scam though - "Don't you love the planet? Give us control and $ and we will do our best to assure your planet stays safe."

It's fascinating that you refuse to understand that congress was the problem. Who blocked any & all efforts? Congress. You can take your disdain & direct it toward the appropriate party, congress. As for the rest of your post, conjecture.