|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 9, 2016 3:53:27 GMT
[quote timestamp="1478662486" source=*I fully realise this is me trying to coddle myself from having a Dok-style breakdown. Where is Dok tonight? Preston you damn fool! Where else?
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 9, 2016 3:54:06 GMT
My post has been buried, but I think the 2020s will bear a closer similarity to the 50s and 60s than the 40s. Cold War is more likely than total war, although if total war does happen (and it could if Trump is stupid enough; the chances are certainly higher than in the last Cold War), then entire countries will be utterly destroyed. Humanity can be an extremely exasperating species. I don't think any country outside the BRIC's has the economic base to have a 50s/60s experience its downhill all the way, unless of course we get total war The USA does, as do many other Western countries who might end up in the grip of the far right. There are some (relatively) well-to-do African and Asian countries which could be reduced to absolute poverty (especially if they're used for proxy wars) but the levels of it could be significantly worse than those seen in the time of the USSR.
|
|
|
Post by A Brown on Nov 9, 2016 3:54:12 GMT
I think he's won TBH. I only started taking seriosly the possibility of a Trump win in Michigan the other day (and overall) based on what rivers10 said. In a weird way I feel pretty non plussed about what appears to be happening as I wasn't properly emotionally invested in this unlike preventing Brexit.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Nov 9, 2016 3:55:14 GMT
It's too close to call IMO. Clinton can still very much win Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania.
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Nov 9, 2016 3:55:29 GMT
Ah well Homo sapiens, you had a good run
|
|
|
Post by Philip Davies on Nov 9, 2016 3:57:09 GMT
Clinton should still win Michigan. Wisconsin is looking less likely and Pennsylvania still have many Republican areas left to count.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,250
|
Post by maxque on Nov 9, 2016 3:59:09 GMT
Trump 1.5% ahead in Florida with 99.3% of the vote counted. Why has this still not been called ?? am I missing something ?? They have a story of wrong additions and tabulation errors.
|
|
Sharon
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 2,560
|
Post by Sharon on Nov 9, 2016 3:59:53 GMT
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 9, 2016 4:01:12 GMT
Ah well Homo sapiens, you had a good run Rational, calm, measured and sensible...........................................................As always.
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Nov 9, 2016 4:02:13 GMT
Looks to me like most of the votes to come are from heavily GOP counties in the centre of the state with most of Philly counted...
|
|
tim
UKIP
Posts: 602
|
Post by tim on Nov 9, 2016 4:02:57 GMT
he's 5% ahead in North Carolina after 90% of the vote counted. Surely another Trump win. Which probably means that he will win all 24 states that Romney did in 2012.
|
|
nitory
Conservative
Posts: 931
|
Post by nitory on Nov 9, 2016 4:04:42 GMT
What on earth is happening in Daviess county, Missouri? Clinton is on 75% with all but one precinct counted, its a northern rural county (with a large Amish population apparently) which went 64% Republican in 2012. An error reversing the parties or an Amish anti-Trump vote?!
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Nov 9, 2016 4:05:15 GMT
Wisoncsin looks ugly. Plenty of votes still out in Dane, but only just enough to make up the gap as it stands and the rest of Milwaukee is likely to be outvoted by the rest of the state.
In Pennsylvania, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh are pretty much all in, but the largest counties with significant numbers still to report are Chester and Bucks, plus the Lehigh valley. Probably enough for Clinton to hold on.
|
|
tim
UKIP
Posts: 602
|
Post by tim on Nov 9, 2016 4:07:55 GMT
Looks to me like most of the votes to come are from heavily GOP counties in the centre of the state with most of Philly counted… Clinton was 20% ahead of Trump in Pennsylvania early doors (presumably philly voting) and has been getting closer and closer in the last hour.Now just 3% differential.
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 9, 2016 4:08:50 GMT
Now North Carolina goes Trump.
|
|
|
Post by lancastrian on Nov 9, 2016 4:10:15 GMT
He's clearly won. No way is Clinton somehow going to pull off all of MI,WI,MN,PA,NV from here.
Clinton has lost to Donald Trump, yes Donald Trump. She's lost them the senate as well, probably for the best part of a decade. All easily foreseeable, and the Democrats deserve all the losses they take.
Anyway, what's next? Presumably construction starts on the wall ASAP, but what of NATO and the war in Iraq/Syria?
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Nov 9, 2016 4:13:29 GMT
He's clearly won. No way is Clinton somehow going to pull off all of MI,WI,MN,PA,NV from here. Clinton has lost to Donald Trump, yes Donald Trump. She's lost them the senate as well, probably for the best part of a decade. All easily foreseeable, and the Democrats deserve all the losses they take. Anyway, what's next? Presumably construction starts on the wall ASAP, but what of NATO and the war in Iraq/Syria? Well if you pick a two-faced, lying, useless, ill, corrupt, hated, bummer............................Even a Trump with no ground force, poor organization, a low spend and half his party AWOL can beat her!!!
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 9, 2016 4:14:10 GMT
He's clearly won. No way is Clinton somehow going to pull off all of MI,WI,MN,PA,NV from here. Clinton has lost to Donald Trump, yes Donald Trump. She's lost them the senate as well, probably for the best part of a decade. All easily foreseeable, and the Democrats deserve all the losses they take. Anyway, what's next? Presumably construction starts on the wall ASAP, but what of NATO and the war in Iraq/Syria? She still has a realistic, albeit unlikely, path to victory if she wins Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. She can achieve a tie if she loses Wisconsin, too, although this would probably translate into a Trump presidency (not that a Clinton presidency would be impossible - if she wins by popular vote, she can make a case that Republicans may feel compelled to accept).
|
|
|
Post by curiousliberal on Nov 9, 2016 4:15:13 GMT
Well I suppose this forces us to spend more on defence at least. The idea of a European Army looks far more attractive than before - or, at least, a NATO without Trump's America.
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Nov 9, 2016 4:15:48 GMT
Well I suppose this forces us to spend more on defence at least. And just how do you suppose we'll find the money for that?
|
|