The 'left' argue based mostly on feelings. Being consistent doesn't matter.

Which of course, is not what he said. But there you go, "only stupid people use quotes they haven't looked up to verify." NickinOX, Holmesdale online, 2016.

By the way, the original is better, and also, perhaps, somewhat prescient.

[Link]

The immense irony in this line of argument is, of course, what it says about the person or party that lost the election. If they couldn't even manage to beat an opponent who they think is supported largely by stupid people what does that tell us?

It is worth pointing out that Clinton got less votes than Mitt Romney in 2012, and McCain in 2008, despite an increase in the number of registered voters (an area where Democrats have had more success than Republicans). Simply put, the Democratic party has turned off its core support who simply failed to vote. Between 5-10m Democrats and independents (based upon the last two elections) chose not to vote for her. Trump's vote was down on what Republicans have managed in the last two elections (and certainly when taking into account the population increase). Ultimately, Hillary failed to defeat an unpopular Republican candidate. That speaks volumes.

If you come to a fork in the road, take it.

A penguin would be more at home in the Glens or the Gorbals than you. You have lived your life in the south of England.

A pack of Waitrose shortbread is more Scottish than you.

Makes me question why you cling to being an 'outsider' so much...

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Is Scottishness determined by ancestory or environmental? If it's the former then I am 1/4 Scottish. If it's the latter then I am 3/4 Scottish as I love a bit of Irn Bru and wearing a skirt.

How Scottish are you lot?

Not very rigged then. The point of a rigged election is that you cannot win it - and you'd expect the rigging candidate to do far better in the essential swing states.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I think if Trump starts to get 'carried away with power' the party will slap him into line. They'll take advantage of having the senate and house, and probably put a republican on the supreme court - but the degree of individual power the president has is limited.

The first lesson most leaders learn is that whilst they're 'the head of state' they're hobbled by their own party, and a lot of republicans are not frothing at the mouth wanna be dictators.

Plus, its kind of debatable how 'right wing' Trump actually is. Certainly he's got a lot more in common with the more moderate Republicans in terms of policy outside of walls and muslims.

Whilst the President is capable of launching a nuclear strike, the likely reality of one just being able to 'do so because the want to' is negligible. More likely their advisors will simply 'restrain them' and issue medical approved removal of command.

The military follow orders, but not slavishly and without question - especially from a president with no military experience.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]