And the winner of the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, as reported by the major mainstream media outlets is Donald Trump. It has also been reported that Hillary Clinton called President-elect Donald Trump to concede.
Electoral vote count (so far): 279 for Donald Trump, 218 for Hillary Clinton. 270 electoral votes are needed to win.
Popular vote: 57,227,164 votes (48.0%) for Donald Trump, 56,279,305 votes (47.2%) for Hillary Clinton. Update: Now it is closer to 59,085,795 votes (47.5%) for Donald Trump and 59,236,903 votes (47.6%) for Hillary Clinton.
Yell, scream, gnash teeth... but please keep it civil.
Results at CNN, NYT, FiveThirtyEight, Wikipedia.
takyon: Republicans have retained control of the House and Senate.
Here's some market news:
Dow futures plunge nearly 750 points as investors warily eye electoral map
Asian markets plummet on likelihood of Trump victory
Bitcoin price soars as Trump pulls ahead
Opinion: How to profit from a Donald Trump victory
Ballot measure results will be covered in an upcoming story. Some initial results can be found at Ballotpedia and CNN.
[TMB Note: Stop breaking stuff, cmn32480]
It has only just begun! Meme overflow!
Yes it is.
Perhaps earth can slowly recover once humankind has ceased to exist....
It's just getting started... https://www.facebook.com/ChrisjCarrMusic/videos/10154205813184151/ [facebook.com]Actually, I voted for the less of two evils... and he won. Good riddance Obama & Clinton.
Tell me that four years from now.
He does not have to reelect him 4 years form now if there are better options. And don't be cheeky by saying "If there is America then."
So in 2024, anyone thinking Ivanka Trump as the first female Jewish president of the USA? She better start making policy speeches and getting some political experience.
Barron's only going to be like 18, so not yet. WRT the Dune-iverse, technically it Paul Atreides son who became the "God Emperor" not Paul himself. But no pressure, kid, just a couple million people who expect you to become a human-sandworm hybrid who rules all of humanity for 4000 years, that's all. No big deal.
From the nepotism standpoint, I'm glad that Clinton didn't win. I'm also surprised that the DNC would even try to field a candidate from a "dysfunctional marriage" - that would have been unthinkable in the 1970s - though Trump's "family values" should put a cork in whatever that faction of right wing politics calls itself these days.
I'm less disappointed in the US people for electing Trump than I was when they elected W (Bush Jr., Son of Spook) and especially less disappointed than when they re-elected him as he led the long war on sand, and sand people.
Hillary talked Left and walked to the Right, time will tell how far to the Left of his talk Mr. T walks. If T starts walking to the Right of his talk, here comes WWIII.
...especially less disappointed than when they re-elected him as he led the long war...
I actually came to this very same conclusion last night while analysing the whole situation with my wife. There is a lot of fear around Trump because he's a complete X factor -- chaos injected into the system. I felt much much better about it when I thought back and remembered the despair at W's re-election because there was no X factor -- we knew exactly that it meant 4 more years of unjustified war and unconscionable deficits.
because he's a complete X factor
As a politician, sure. But it helps that he's been in the public eye continuously since the 80s, at least some small weird fraction of the population watched his reality TV shows for hundreds of hours.
It would be like if my mom ran for prez. I think I know mom pretty well, so I'd be chill with her in general, but she's a complete political unknown.
Palin, now there was an X factor. Its a big leap in public awareness to go from attending PTA meetings to Veep in like two years.
"the long war on sand, and sand people."
Heh - that fit right in with GP post - nicely done!
If you were born into or joined a death cult which claims that the bible is false while the words of a pedophile slaver are the only Truth for which not believing in will result in death or perpetual religious tax, then yes It Is Over.
For the rest of us who do not get up in the morning brimming with thoughts of rape and murder* with plots to take over the world the future has just begun.
Let's hope he doesn't screw it up.
* This includes people who are being raped on a daily basis
More important that a Trump presidency is the absolute Republican majority in government across the board.
Have no idea of when it all falls apart, but if there was ever a "fuck you" from flyover country, this was it.
Thanks for reminding me about the Senate.
The House was a done deal because of gerrymandering.
It was a done deal because the people in those states consistently vote their favorite party. The gerrymandering is a side effect of that.
How did Republicans gain their historic advantage? It all started with the party’s sweeping victories in 2010 and a plan called REDMAP.
As for this:
It was a done deal because the people in those states consistently vote their favorite party.
That's not exactly accurate:
Every 10 years following the census, states redraw the boundaries of House districts to account for population changes. Some states gain seats and others lose them, so the overall total remains 435. In most states, the legislature and the governor draw up the new districts, which is why political parties pay special attention to elections at the start of each decade.“I think Democrats made a terrible mistake. They did not put nearly enough attention or resources into legislative races at the state level,” said Matt Bennett, a former aide to President Bill Clinton. “A bunch of these legislatures slipped by very narrow margins, and some of them flipped for the first time since Reconstruction in the South.”For Republicans, it was a combination of luck and planning. The political winds were in their favor, but they also had been plotting for years to take full advantage of redistricting.The project was called REDMAP, which stood for Redistricting Majority Project. It called for targeting statehouse races in states that were expected to gain or lose congressional seats following the census. GOP strategists reasoned that redistricting could have a greater impact in these states because there would have to be more changes to district boundaries, said Chris Jankowski, former president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, which heads up the party’s national effort to elect candidates to state offices.Republicans spent more than $30 million through REDMAP to help elect legislative majorities in states like Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Jankowski said.In Ohio, REDMAP spent nearly $1 million on six Ohio House races. Republican candidates won five, helping them take control of the Ohio House.In Pennsylvania, REDMAP spent nearly $1 million on three state House races, winning all three and helping Republicans win a majority in the Pennsylvania House.“We’re not talking about 2-month-long broadcast buys on network TV that never stop, like you see in a U.S. Senate battle,” Jankowski said. “We’re talking about cable, radio, mail, ground game — very basic stuff.”Similar scenarios played out in Michigan and Wisconsin. In North Carolina, Republicans won control of the entire state legislature for the first time since the 1800s.“We targeted the resources to have maximum impact on congressional redistricting,” Jankowski said.The strategy worked. Before the 2010 election, the GOP had majorities in 36 state legislative bodies. Afterward, the party controlled 56, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Every 10 years following the census, states redraw the boundaries of House districts to account for population changes. Some states gain seats and others lose them, so the overall total remains 435. In most states, the legislature and the governor draw up the new districts, which is why political parties pay special attention to elections at the start of each decade.
“I think Democrats made a terrible mistake. They did not put nearly enough attention or resources into legislative races at the state level,” said Matt Bennett, a former aide to President Bill Clinton. “A bunch of these legislatures slipped by very narrow margins, and some of them flipped for the first time since Reconstruction in the South.”
For Republicans, it was a combination of luck and planning. The political winds were in their favor, but they also had been plotting for years to take full advantage of redistricting.
The project was called REDMAP, which stood for Redistricting Majority Project. It called for targeting statehouse races in states that were expected to gain or lose congressional seats following the census. GOP strategists reasoned that redistricting could have a greater impact in these states because there would have to be more changes to district boundaries, said Chris Jankowski, former president of the Republican State Leadership Committee, which heads up the party’s national effort to elect candidates to state offices.
Republicans spent more than $30 million through REDMAP to help elect legislative majorities in states like Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Jankowski said.
In Ohio, REDMAP spent nearly $1 million on six Ohio House races. Republican candidates won five, helping them take control of the Ohio House.
In Pennsylvania, REDMAP spent nearly $1 million on three state House races, winning all three and helping Republicans win a majority in the Pennsylvania House.
“We’re not talking about 2-month-long broadcast buys on network TV that never stop, like you see in a U.S. Senate battle,” Jankowski said. “We’re talking about cable, radio, mail, ground game — very basic stuff.”
Similar scenarios played out in Michigan and Wisconsin. In North Carolina, Republicans won control of the entire state legislature for the first time since the 1800s.
“We targeted the resources to have maximum impact on congressional redistricting,” Jankowski said.
The strategy worked. Before the 2010 election, the GOP had majorities in 36 state legislative bodies. Afterward, the party controlled 56, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
I consider a system where arbitrary specifications like the borders of voting districts can radically change an election outcome to be fundamentally broken.
Fundamentally, for sure.
What they SHOULD DO when the census changes drastically, is to add seats to the house. If Rhode Island's population triples, just give them another seat or two. To hell with redrawing districts.
Go by county lines. I htink my state has 57 counties - to lazy to look to be sure - so if it warranted another seat, just take some counties from this district, some from that district, and make them a new district. Balance out the population overall, but stop trying to create a minority majority district and two or six majority majority districts. Counties were created for several reasons - the counties should be the unit of barter in any "redistricting" plans.
I have been carefully gerrymandered into a completely separate counties district despite being within walking distance to our counties district HQ. My kids elementary and middle schools are in different districts, and the local voting place is literally 100 yards from the other district. I pass in and out of "my" district several times when going to the store.
Gerrymandering is not just a Republican thing. Both of "my" districts are controlled by Democrats.
Not only do both parties do it, they often cooperate with each other. It is a win-win for both: The republican trades the democrat leaning parts of his district for the democrats part that has more republicans. Makes both districts safer for each congress critter. They literally pick their voters.
That's not necessarily true. There is another way to go about things called proportional representation where instead of each district electing a single winner, the whole county or state elects candidates (or parties) to multiple seats.
I wonder why they didn't do that? I mean they could have done it back in the 1800s and saved us this hassle.
I can't speak for the whole country, but in my part of the world it is considered important to have someone local to represent interests in your area. Locals know where roads are needed, when pollution is a problem, and when their neighbors are in trouble. I suppose that you could try to do a proportional representation system that drew officers with geographic as well as idealistic proportionality, but nobody has ever made that work.
They didn't do that because the point was to elect someone that knew your local concerns. A group of 10,000 people shouting at each other won't accomplish anything. But break them down into common types (farmers, city dwellers, etc...) and have them each elect a few people, then suddenly it's only 10 people shouting at each other while maintaining the same concerns of those 10,000 people. The whole US government is structured as a pyramid on purpose.
So the reduction feature is working exactly as designed, except the type wasn't really meant to be one of two political parties.
I suppose that you could try to do a proportional representation system that drew officers with geographic as well as idealistic proportionality, but nobody has ever made that work.
So you say the German system doesn't work?
In Germany we have exactly this: In elections for the federal parliament, everyone has two votes. One for a district representative ("direct candidate"), and one for the party in general. The second vote determines the proportion. Additional delegates from party lists are added to make the proportion right.
Needlessly ignoring slinches' perfectly valid (and much simpler) solution, we could agree on an algorithm for dividing a polygon into n roughly equal districts, and then have the computer spit out an answer that anybody could verify as having been made by the agreed upon algorithm. As long as we aren't changing the algorithm whenever a different faction takes over or the population shifts slightly, this should work just fine. If legislators do fiddle with the algorithm, they can't hide behind the excuse of neccessary redistricting. I'm just proposing that this one problem is solvable, not that American democracy is generally fixable.
agreed upon algorithm
Stop right there. You might as well have it picked by unicorns if agreeing on anything is a requirement.
Despite your retroactive advice, I contiued:
I'm just proposing that this one problem is solvable, not that American democracy is generally fixable.
Non-partisan redistricting should be mandated whenever we get around to enacting the American Constitution 2.0.
Or, you know, drop districts all together. Every party (there could be dozens or more) posts that they are open for voters to join about 6-3 months before a party registration deadline and run any advertising, post position information, and try to connect with as many voters as possible. Every voter has to register (from scratch) with the party they want to affiliate with for this election. At the end of the party registration process, the total number of voters registered are totaled up, and then each party is assigned a number of representatives appropriate for their size. Then, for a week after the registration, the parties collect names of candidates from those who registered for the party. Then for 1 month after that, the candidates receive the contact information for their party's members, and the candidates must campaign nationwide to become a representative within their party (they can use direct contact through email, social media, TV ads, signs, rallies, etc).
Some parties may be so small they only get one rep (100k-500k members per rep?) Others will have dozens or more. Every party member votes for every candidate. Your party gets a team of candidates based on how the members vote, and your party gets represented directly corresponding to your percentage of the population, and since the people pick the parties, their is no gerrymandering allowed.
So, basically, re-register to vote at every election? I'm not real sure that I would bother to vote. I've been a busy man, all of my life. I simply don't have the time nor the inclination to go through a registration process regularly.
I like my position as is. I'm a registered independent voter, and I can participate in ONE primary election (I cannot vote in both the Republican and the Democrat primary, nor could I vote in a third party primary while voting in either of the previously named party's primary) each election cycle, and I can participate in the actual election. No paperwork necessary. I know where to vote, I go there, I walk in the door, and I'm greeted, "Good morning Mr. Runaway, do you have your photo ID with you?"
This election cycle kinda sucked though. When I was greeted by those gray old women, I realized that most of them are MY AGE!! Seriously, my wife went to school with those old biddies!
You lucky bastard... you get asked for photo ID... some of us only dream of things like that.
You didn't miss the funny part of that, did you? I'm addressed by name, THEN asked for my photo ID.
This year, things are "improved", or at least changed. They place your photo ID into a little scanner, which checks with the voter registration office, to verify that you are indeed registered to vote. Seems that it would be really tough to fake your identification, or to vote a second time, with this system. Of course, someone will figure a way to bypass the "added security".
No, the gerrymandering is a positive feedback loop to ensure that it continues. When my state lost a district after the last census, redistricting moved me into a long thin district with people from most of the way across the state. An area that had been reliably one party was cut into slivers, each connected to areas that had been reliably for the other party. It has taken three elections for our district to overturn the situation.
The term "flyover country" is reason alone for this giant middle finger to the coastal elites. It perfectly captures the who-cares-about-existing-Americans attitude our so-called enlightened folks feel about white people who neither think nor act like they do.
the who-cares-about-existing-Americans attitude
To be fair, that is the single most important founding principle of the USA.
Drop the race crap. This isn't about race. Trump didn't win on the white vote. He received a greater share of the latino vote than Romney did. He even received a greater share of the black vote. I think the thing that's really driving this is we're all getting so sick and tired of the media pretending everything is race, or gender, or whatever else. There has been an ongoing class battle in the US. Know about the massive fast food wage protests? Of course not because the media pretends things like this don't exist. Black Lives Matter is ostensibly the antithesis to Trump support yet it's fundamentally the same thing as was the Occupy movement. Left or right doesn't even make any sense anymore. People, both sides of the aisle, are getting tired of feeling like they're being exploited and Hillary was the embodiment of this exploitation and class entitlement. Trump as a billionaire from a millionaire father isn't exactly a 'plastic spooner' but he still managed to tap into this frustration that people, the vast majority of people, are feeling. Will he deliver on this? No idea, but I know for sure Hillary wouldn't and this has nothing to do with the color of peoples' skins or whatever happens to be between their legs.
Black Lives Matter is ostensibly the antithesis to Trump support yet it's fundamentally the same thing as was the Occupy movement
You might consider why Occupy went down such a flaming death, and why BLM is assuredly going to do the same- when the progressive stack becomes more important than issues, you've set the course for irrelevancy, alienating your largest block of supporters.
And that is most assuredly about race.
> You might consider why Occupy went down such a flaming death [...]
Massive, co-ordinated police actions appear to have been a major reason.
> He received a greater share of the latino vote than Romney did.> He even received a greater share of the black vote.
That's outright false.
> This isn't about race.
It is absolutely about race. Its about rural whites thinking that minorities are "cutting in line" [washingtonpost.com] and urban republican whites not minding blatant bigotry in their president as long as it's not directed at themselves.
The KKK are fucking jubilant over this result. [internationalnewslive.com]
Which KKK. The new version BLM? Or the old school black panthers? Maybe La Raza?
White != Racist you nitwit.
The DNC created KKK is basically irrelevant at this point. The only people who continue to make the relevant are those who want to divide people into little groups. So they can tell them sweet sweet tailored lies and then do nothing about it.
You are willing to allow people to break the law just so long as you do not look 'bigoted'. Well many disagree with your stance.
KKK was not the only supporter [twitter.com]...
Victor Laszlo: This will always be remembered as the presidential election in which the KKK, the KGB and the FBI all supported the same candidate.
You have to be realistic, its a running joke in the 1488-alt-right nrx type movement that every freaking member of the KKK is a FBI or local law enforcement agent.
As a typical example one of the alt-right podcasts I listen to had a running joke over the recent Halloween holiday that he loves Halloween because finally he can wear a white sheet in public without people thinking he's in the FBI and all the other hosts laughing. Everyone's got a joke similar to that.
Now if you mean "Klan" as in Normies call any non-progressive infiltrated semi organized or autonomous group the "Klan", well that's different. Yeah, we're pretty happy. Jubilant even. But thats intellectually lazy, just like every Republican for my entire life has been "literally Hitler" so I've been gradually acculturated to think a politician who's like Hitler is pretty cool. I like Duterte and Putin and Trump and Pinochet, I'm told they're all literally Hitler and having Hitler in charge was only a bad idea exactly one time back in my grandparents generation. But every time we put a Clinton in office its a corrupt shitshow, or not just a Clinton but a "D" in general.
I never thought I'd feel common cause with Duterte, him being a chinese commie emulation of Che. Che was a total dirtbag, but Duterte has little reason to dislike him other than the whole "bosses are chi-coms" thing. The alt-right is more open minded that most give it credit.
On a side issue, something I don't understand about anti-KGB anti-Russian stuff Hillary was running on while trying to start a nuclear WW3 in Syria... show some empathy? Like if the Russians were having an election where one candidate was a nutcase trying to turn the world into a radioactive cinder and/or start WW3 and/or a new cold war, that is horrific and you'd demand the CIA do every damn thing possible to prevent the pointless worldwide annihilation of western civilization. So the KGB should oppose Clinton because the odds of Russia turning into a radioactive cinder are what, 10, 100, 1000 times higher with her than the known to be Chill God Emperor? I mean you can't blame people for not wanting to die... It might be some boomer thing that only people born before 1940 and lived in the cold war can relate to, but every time she went on a "I've got a great idea, lets nuke Russia" rant I was like WTF are you actively trying to lose?
Not sure which of your comments are sincere and which are more sarcastic or tongue in cheek. A cousin of my wife was shot dead under Dutertes war on drugs... He was a user only, not a dealer, going to the police to own up, and next thing he is shot dead from behind in the head, two more bullets to the chest for good measure. Body looked like he was shot kneeling, the way it fell. Gun in his left hand as he allegedly attacked the police (strange he is right handed, and strange it was not the gun he legally owned), and drugs in his right hand to make certain everyone gets the point he was definitely a maniac on drugs at that time.
And this is not a rare case on Philippines nowadays, more like a common pattern.
I'm not claiming every nutjob is "literary" a "Hitler". Unfortunately the name and meme was heavily overused the past decades, by Disney-movies and alike to depict a non-human monster that everyone expects to identify for what it is on a first glance, from others as an insult to any conservative nationalist. The effect is that everyone thinks what happened here in Germany could never happen to them, and any allegation to Hitler can be ignored due to decades of crying "Wol^wHitler" at any occasion.
I sincerely which you the best of luck with your new president. I'm not even sure Hillary would have been better, although I'm sure she would have understood that if the world burns, USA would burn with it. With Trump I'm not so sure. I'm a bit concerned that this is a general tendency. It was in France, Hungary, Poland, Britain (Brexit), Philippines, etc. People are just fed up with corrupt politicians and vote for change. No matter what, as long as it is a change. Bernie Sanders would have been a viable alternative in that regard, I suspect. Assuming this will show the establishment, and assuming it can't get any worse anyhow.
I'm afraid this is a wrong assumption. I think it can get *much* worse, on a global scale, before things finally might get better again. And due to technical progress, mankind is now in a position to destroy the human race entirely, so I can't take it for granted it will get better again later.
Well, illegal aliens ARE 'cutting in line'. But, "illegal" isn't a race, dumbass.
It is revealing that when you read "minority" you hear "illegal."
Don't sweat it man - in just a few short years, whites will be the minority, and probably illegal too.
But, "illegal" isn't a race, dumbass.
In practice though, nobody is protesting hot Canadian women scantily clad in maple leaf costumes tying us up to force feed us delicious maple syrup while experiencing a civilized modern healthcare system and watching ice hockey. I hate it every time that happens. In fact I should go protest it right now. At least I'll protest against the ice hockey part.
Funny isn't it how ICE puts in a lot of labor hours to make sure a white college grad from England will never work illegally here, but the country doesn't seem to enforce any laws or rules against folks of certain other demographic characteristics. Its almost like the system is rigged or is racist against some groups. Naah couldn't be, right?
Funny isn't it how ICE puts in a lot of labor hours to make sure a white college grad from England will never work illegally here, but the country doesn't seem to enforce any laws or rules against folks of certain other demographic characteristics. Its almost like the system is rigged or is racist against some groups. Naah couldn't be, right?
As someone who has a close family member who married white European person -- who was prevented for years from coming to the U.S. (even though she was married to an American citizen and had a child who was born in the U.S. and an American citizen) because of overstaying a visa earlier... I can assure you that U.S. immigration can be jerks to people of all nationalities and races.
Yes, the most prominent group of "illegal aliens" that politics focuses on are Mexicans (and other Latin Americans). But I assure you from my own family experience and from hearing of others who were in similar situations when they were consulting attorneys to deal with the fiasco of years of hearings and proceedings... U.S. immigration definitely doesn't give a free pass to whites or whatever.
At some point in the process my family members were seriously considering just sneaking this person across the Canadian border rather than going through the official process, since it works so much better for most "illegal immigrants." Instead, they put up with living separately with my relative commuting back and forth to Europe to be with his family for several years.
No kidding. My second-in-command at the Clinton Foundation, no less, was Irish and it took him 15 years to get his green card, and that was without having overstayed a visa or anything like that.
He even received a greater share of the black vote.
One of these ACs is wrong. I'll put my actual name and reputation (however tarnished it may be) to the result of some google searches and the best factual data I can find at this time is Trump got 8% of the black vote and Romney scored 6% of the black vote. That may change thru the day as numbers are finalized and, of course, spun.
You could make a good argument that 2% of the black vote is racist and only voted for Obama because he was black, and without a black dude on the ticket they voted their conscience instead. Honestly I don't know how to comment if 1 in 50 being the dark equivalent of klansmen is high or low. I mean 49 out of 50 black folk not being racist is pretty damn good in a certain absolute sense, its only the 1 in 50 that need fixing, I guess? Are 1 in 50 white guys 1488? More? Less? Damnfino. Most of the black folk I know are extremely highly educated and very successful (which makes them extreme outliers in their community) and they in general have expressed high skepticism of race relations to me, but none of them would qualify as far as I know as outright racists so anecdotally 1 in 50 isn't too ridiculous.
Also as a side issue there's no point in assuming the worst, its entirely possible AC #2 is factually reporting partial results he read at 9pm last night or something that are simply out of date. Or AC misread some data from Mississippi or some subset and that peculiar subset has peculiar result that don't reflect national results.
You think like CNN and MSNBC.
It was funny watching them discuss the results. They would alternate between dissing Trump and proclaiming that he won by angry while males, occasionally acknowledging that there might be a class divide.
Not a negative word was said about Clinton. They literally couldn't say "corrupt".
Trump was up against somebody who wanted to run the USA like a 3rd-world nation, pay-for-play with immunity for team members. Why can't this be admitted?
It's also about women, and what will happen to them if we let in unlimited muslims. It's also about not wanting to have to speak a different language right here where we were born. It's also about jobs, including for black men...
...but mostly it's about corruption.
One more thing that probably showed up too late to matter (couple days ago) but should be more than enough to disqualify Clinton: She had a secure room in her house called a SCIF (see Wikipedia) that is used for TOP SECRET with extras, effectively beyond TOP SECRET. She gave the code to open this room to her maid, who is a foreign citizen, so that the maid could go get things and print things. This alone earns Clinton a felony. Also, her room was not certified for computers, and she denied that she had them there, yet she did in fact have at least a laptop in the room. Normal people serve time for that sort of thing, though a mere "oops" can be just losing a security clearance. This was no "oops", given that Clinton asked her maid to print stuff.
I don't know about Trump... but I do know about Clinton. We chose to not have 3rd-world governance.
I'm a white male. I voted for Trump because most of the politicians hate him and they couldn't even imagine him winning, that's how full of themselves they were. I hate the politicians and it's about time they get something they don't like. They're all far too cosy, using their positions for personal gain rather than improving the country. Really, that's the only reason I didn't vote 3rd party. It was a screw you vote to Washington and to Hillary. Hillary matches my views on almost every issue (well her current public views anyway), but her and her party were just too corrupt to vote for. Race or gender never factored into anything.
I have no doubt that Trump will be a bad president, but he's an enemy of my enemy. I'm sorry about all the little people I just helped screw over and the environmental damage he'll cause, but I can't support any politicians anymore and he was their worse choice. They would have screwed over the little guys anyway. That's what they do. Hopefully Trump will keep them off balance.
> He received a greater share of the latino vote than Romney did. He even received a greater share of the black vote.
Those are exit poll numbers. They don't include all of the early voting and early voting was way up, especially in Florida and Nevada where latinos are a large part of the electorate.
They don't include all of the early voting and early voting was way up, especially in Florida and Nevada where latinos are a large part of the electorate.
Why would the early voting lean more Hispanic?
If you look at "change maps" that compare to prior elections, the biggest shift was in the north rust belt. Many lost decent-paying middle-class jobs there and are as pissed as hell.
Whether Trump can bring comparable jobs back is another matter. Technology genies are hard to put back in the bottles. But at least he gave those people hope.
Obama dismissed them as "bitter clingers", at least verbally, and they didn't forget that.
> The term "flyover country" is reason alone for this giant middle finger to the coastal elites.
As someone who has lived in Illinois, Tennessee, Texas, Colorado, Nevada, Florida, Washington State, New York and California -- the only people I've ever heard use the term "fly-over country" are people with persecution complexes who live in 'fly-over country.'
You're not real bright, Bubba. The term "flyover country" made little sense to any middle-America resident, untit it was shoved down our throats by the media. At every election, we heard about the results from NY, Cal, and a few other "battle ground" states - but "flyover country" was largely ignored.
Go pound sand, you ignorant monkey.
I actually never heard the term until someone from the east coast said this was his first time in flyover country. Took me a few seconds to get it. It's basically an insult.
I thought it just meant sparsely populated ... no big cities. You know, all that land you just fly over when getting to one of the big cities.
Nothing worth visiting, right? That's the idea behind "flyover country". You don't land there. It's just boring and useless land (and people) between real places. I doubt most people mean it to be an insult though.
I'm watching PBS Newshour tonight and the only person to use the term "fly-over country" is the shouty conservative guy doing exactly the kind of aggrieved projection as originally described. He was so loud that I actually had to turn down the volume, I've never had to turn down the volume on the Newshour before.
Yes, I agree with you. I grew up in the Rockies, a storied- and robust region of the country that was settled by people who are tougher than I'll ever be. Those people forded rivers, fought bitterly cold winters, withstood the intense isolation of threatening, unsettled lands. Growing up, I was proud of them and proud to be descended from them. In a couple of generations those hard-bitten folk had turned wilderness into a global force for good. Pretty awesome in any book.
Then I went to college in Chicago and met my roommate from Philadelphia. He dismissively referred to everyone between the East Coast and the West Coast as "Flyover Country," and my reaction was, "fuck you, you sheltered simpering elite."
"Flyover country" is incredibly insulting to the people who make the pampered lives of the coasts possible. They don't ever seek fame. They are stolid and want only to do their work and have that work be useful. They believe in God, and in freedom. Every time they see those values mocked in popular culture it drives a wedge between their daily reality and the country they live in. I suspect that the people who voted for Brexit experienced the same.
See also: http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ [cracked.com]
Holy cockslaps? WTF?
But, basically anyone who wants to understand US politics ought to read that page. Vulgarity aside, he's got it figured out.
That is a fascinating article; and it explains why people in the "Red states" didn't vote for Clinton.
But IMHO it still doesn't explain why they voted for Trump. I can't understand why those voters believed him.
I truly believe people were not so much voting for Trump as against the globalist, crony-capitalist plutocracy. If Peewee Herman had run as an anti-establishment firebrand he might have won too.
Yes, but how did they arrive at "the Republican party is anti-establishment" ?????
You are both right and wrong.
Jeb and the other 14 to 66 low T level, low energy neocucks were the establishment candidates. Jeb had like $100M raised if I remember correctly? The entire establishment hates Trump so its pretty hard to argue he's establishment. The entire media, all of academentia, the more cucked corporations...
You are correct in that the party in general has too many legacy neocuck traitors who will be liquidated shortly.
So, when are the gas chambers open for business? Or will Trump make a deal and sell his soul to the establishment?
Have to remember Trump used to buy and sell those same politicians before he became one, and he can still afford it, and his brand is ascendant at this time. Imagine what a guy like Trump could do to in the midterm primaries to a legislator on his bad side...
Or working the other angle, he has to sell out to the establishment because...
The part where Trump basically told the Bushes, Bill Krystal, et al to go to hell.
Makes you wonder what could have happened if they hadn't thrown Bernie under the bus.
bernie would have won, but i'm sure glad he didn't. socialists need to leave before it's too late.
If the Democrats hadn't been so blind, they would have found *some* way to run Bernie. An election between two old white guys would have emphasized the difference between "nice old coot with idealistic ideas" and "obnoxious asshole".
Then, the right-wing media would have slipped appropriate synonyms of "commie" and "jew" into the debate.
I truly believe people were not so much voting for Trump as against the globalist, crony-capitalist plutocracy.
So instead of voting for a politician that has good intentions in mind but sometimes doesn't deliver to expectations, you voted in the most egocentric, crooked and self-centered elitist? The guy that made deals with the New York mafia? Seriously, WTF?
If this doesn't spell *elitist*, I have no fucking idea what does. I guess let the deportations begin?? I would grab popcorn, if only this idiocracy would not affect the rest of the world.
So instead of voting for a politician that has good intentions in mind but sometimes doesn't deliver to expectations
You must be talking about third party candidates. Or were you talking about Clinton, who supports mass surveillance, supports the TSA, supports the drug war, wants to censor the Internet to fight terrorism, and generally supports a lot of unconstitutional nonsense? Trump agrees with Clinton on many of these issues. She might have good intentions (I doubt it; there's no way a politician like her doesn't understand how those policies destroy freedom and violate the Constitution.), but she, like Trump, is a wicked, authoritarian human being.
>...not so much voting for Trump as against the globalist, crony-capitalist plutocracy.BINGO!
The 'Out with the old, in with the new. Anyone but the typical who's who!'
It's an understandable viewpoint, and one that will hopefully be tempered with experienced cabinet members. Trumpster is after all, only one person.
So basically, as Mr. Trump completely tossed the Republican platform out the window, we have just seen the first third-party in disguise victory. It took a loud, crude, totally unlikable individual to do it. And he did it basically because no one took him seriously because he was a loud, crude, totally unlikable person. He didn't act or sound like a politician. He played on fear and anger. He didn't play by the rules.He was different. A cult of personality put up against a brick. Obama promised hope and change, we got little of either, Trump promised change with a really big megaphone and got more free airtime than any candidate I can recall just by being Donald.Both parties should be shitting their pants right now. They must realize just how thin their support has become. I dislike DT, but he has shaken the establishment to it's roots. And that is a good thing.
Well, maybe not totally unlikable, as there was Ted Cruz in the mix at one time.
What will we name this new party? Donpublican, Trumpinstein, Godzilla?
Seriously though, he doesn't seem to support the Republican nor the Democratic platforms nor have support of the parties. Doesn't that make him third-party in disguise? Bernie Sanders was basically this, and may of gotten all the way if not for being screwed. We have witnessed actual interest and desire for more options from both sides of the isle in the population. I hope this trend continues and delivers some real choice in four years.Yeah, I smoke too much weed, keeps me from getting too cynical.
See this: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/07/donald-trump-why-americans-support [theguardian.com]
Trump was the only candidate pretending to represent the "jobs going away" bunch. Other than Sanders: http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Bernie_Sanders_Free_Trade.htm [ontheissues.org]Not Johnson, who thinks it will lead to more jobs: http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Gary_Johnson_Free_Trade.htm [ontheissues.org]OK maybe Stein but would she even get a quarter of the support Sanders got? http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Jill_Stein_Free_Trade.htm [ontheissues.org]
Sanders would have got more of those votes than Clinton. But the DNC didn't like him - he wasn't truly one of them (which was another plus point for him among some voters).
Go look at all those laid-off workers and their families in the eye and tell them that free trade creates more jobs in the USA.
I'm not sure that Trump would actually try to solve that problem. But the fact is Clinton was not even pretending that she'd do that. She was doing stuff like calling the TPP the "gold standard": http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200565.htm [state.gov]
As Euripedes said: "When a man's stomach is full it makes no difference whether he is rich or poor.". In America do those voters and their families get fed well after they've lost their jobs? Do they get their bread and circuses? They remember a time when America was great, there was hope. And which of the candidate gave them the most hope where they were? Not Clinton. Clinton would be a guaranteed continuation of their nightmare.
I did not make it through the article, (its buzzfeed top-10 level laziness) but the top part basically posits that since red-state folks live in most of the land mass, they should have most of the vote population density be damned.
Yes. I've been sharing that cracked article around everywhere I can for the last week. I grew up on the ragged edge of suburbia, spent a lot of time in the country, summer jobs on farms and what not. This brought back a lot forgotten truths for me. Once I read this and fit it in with the larger context of what's going on, along with some deconstruction help from Scott Adams, and I knew, for sure, that Trump was going to take it.
Great article. I live in a small city surrounded by farmland. Not quite flyover but not big city either.We see a lot of both sides here.Seems odd though, that the most accurate article I have now read on the election came from Cracked. I love it.We could look at it this way. Trump threw out the political platform, running on his own opinions and making up his platform as he went along. Does that not make him a third-party in disguise?
I shared in August after taking the family on an 8,500 mile roadtrip around America (we didn't go through the deep South, but went everywhere else) that we saw Trump signs everywhere, more than we could count, and not a single sign for Hillary, even in the heart of the bluest of the blue (Madison, WI, Chicago, IL, Seattle, WA, Portland, OR, Eugene, OR, San Francisco, CA, etc). It was clear there was a huge enthusiasm gap.
Toward the end, though, I wasn't sure that would be enough to overcome the weight of the entire Establishment working in concert against him.
This is true. I live in Seattle. During primary season I saw MAYBE 1 Hillary Sign for every 10+ Bernie signs. Considering the state when like 70% Bernie during the caucus this was not surprising. Even after the primary though, those Bernie signs were never replaced with Hillary signs. By this past weekend, honestly you were just as likely to see a Johnson or a Stein yard sign as you were a Hillary sign.
Damn girl - that little speech can't really be improved on. It really can't. This is the part of the country where you find real men, and real women. This is where hard work means something. It's where stuff gets done.
Our rejects go running off to New York or Los Angeles, to become prostitutes and dope heads.
Flyover country, indeed.
Jesus, Runaway, this is fundamentally why nothing real and lasting will happen under President Trump. You simply cannot, cannot resist insulting the people who agree with you on certain issues. You must insult them.
Calling me 'girl' is one such example. I disagree with you often, but I never call you 'bitch' or 'pansy,' though others might think you have more than earned such epithets.
Let me couch my comments on 'flyover country.' Young people in 'flyover country' migrate to places like Los Angeles, Atlanta, and New York because their home towns don't recognize or reward their impulse to do something new. LA and NYC and other urban centers at least afford them the chance to break out. Des Moines, and places like it, never will. That doesn't mean that those places have no value, which I wrote about earlier, but it also doesn't mean that urban centers like LA and NYC don't have any value either.
Um, it's just an expression.
You're making way too much over this.
You're right, Cocksucker. Oh, wait, that's just an expression. I didn't mean you literally suck cock. Don't make too much of it.
See how that works? I can debase you to no end, then claim I didn't mean it, and get to both deliver the insult and pretend that I shouldn't face the consequences.
Here the ink on the election results isn't even dry, and you're already hard at work erasing any potential good from the result through sheer dumbfuckery. ProTip: shut the fuck up and let any positive consensus following from this election proceed, because it will benefit you and everyone else.
I think the most interesting thing about this comment thread is the logic leap that took you from someone using a fairly common exclamation (one with a positive meaning, no less; it's used as a compliment) to you being insulted because it had the word "girl" in it. You just automatically assumed that because there's a feminine word there, that the remark just had to be an insult. Worse still, after someone tried to explain it, you doubled down on the outrage and equated it to being debased and called a cocksucker.
That says more about your mindset than the commenter's. Taking the exchange as-is without outside context, it looks like you're either doggedly searching for something to be offended about, or you have a piss-poor opinion of women and are projecting that. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I think it's more likely that you're just on edge because of the election tension. Tempers have been running hot for months and a lot of people just seem ready to snap. Take a few deep breaths and relax.
(In case it's still not clear, Runaway's comment seems to be commending you for your well-stated (in his opinion) rant about people dismissing "fly-over country", and your reaction was to get pissed off and pick a fight over him agreeing with you. Chill.)
Taking the exchange as-is without outside context, it looks like you're either doggedly searching for something to be offended about, or you have a piss-poor opinion of women and are projecting that.
It also occurs to me that maybe Phoenix is female and objects (as a woman) to being called a girl? Forgetting that by posting as Phoenix we dont know that and so an unintended insult occurred. Hmmm. Must admit Phoenix being female hadnt occurred to me before but now I look at their posts again, its plausible. Not that I care either way, just greatfull for all his/her posts!
No, very much male. My reaction was born of frustration at trying very hard to give even the most vituperative members of the SN community their due on an emotionally charged subject, only to have it repaid with churlish, sophomoric quips.
The other possibility is maybe you're an asshole?
Just putting it out there.
Des Moines, and places like it, never will.
Oh please, the "magic dirt" mythology at work.
Right up there with SV only exists because SV is built on magic dirt such that nobody anywhere else can program, there's something in SV dirt, you know, like LSD or something.
"Magic coastal dirt" theory doesn't apply for music, programming, commodities trading, engineering, science, real estate, frankly anything industry or corporate in general ... I'll give you it does apply for shit tier "modern art" which is mostly trash, and broadway musicals and its showtunes, so there's about 0.0001% of the population that's gonna have to move to the coasts.
I will say jobs are unevenly distributed. More commodities jobs in Chicago than rural Oklahoma and more petroleum engineering jobs in New Orleans than anywhere in Michigan.
It's not a question of geography. There are no such barriers to innovation in the Internet Age. But different communities develop local cultures that lend (or do not lend) themselves to experimentation and innovation, do they not? Take Austin, TX as an example. "Silicon Prairie," I believe they have dubbed it. It has Google Fiber and a robust start-up scene. Yet it's smack-dab in the middle of "Flyover Country." Is that a function of "magic dirt?" No. It is a function of intentional policies to encourage creativity.
This is the part of the country where you find real men, and real women. This is where hard work means something. It's where stuff gets done.
That is total nonsense: "Real men" and "Real women" aren't a matter of geography. Neither is hard work, nor is stuff getting done. You can find plenty of good and courageous people that work their butts off in both the inner cities and the most rural areas of Wyoming. You can also find bums and criminals and the worst kind of scum in both the inner cities and the most rural areas of the country.
That's all a matter of character. Not population density, not race, not religion, not gender, and not sexual orientation.
He simply listens to too many contemporary country song lyrics.
nope, there is a qualitative difference in the people and their capabilities...city mice may have (MAY) various urban skills that have ZERO value outside the context of a cancerous blight on yhe landscape known as cities...country mice have generalized knowledge and skills that are ACTUALLY useful for living ANYWHERE; but city mice disparage them for having dirt under their fingernails and knowing how to skin a deer, etc...stupid city mice, when the hard rain comes, our dogs will be cracking your bones for the marrow...(note, OF COURSE there are SOME FEW city mice who can snare a rabbit, grow a crop, etc; but there are both FAR MORE country mice who can do the same tasks city mice can do, PLUS a FAR wider population who can do canning, repair a tractor, raise a barn, etc, that are REAL skills for survival...um, when the hard rain comes, 'social media' "skills" won't mean shit...)
There are some city-mice skills that country-mice lack, though, that are also pretty valuable. For instance:- When is a loud "bang" a car backfiring, a gunshot, a gunshot close enough that you need to duck for cover, or the wind knocking over a trash can?- Which beggars are legitimately in need of help, and which ones are the professionals who actually live quite comfortably?- What's the best way to get from point A to point B during rush hour? City travelling is very different from country driving.
And the country skills that you value so highly are just as useless in a high-density city as the things I just mentioned are in the country. For example, you aren't going to go deer hunting in New York.
And for the record, I've been both a city mouse and a country mouse. They both have their challenges, and their advantages.
As a fellow former-country mouse and current city mouse I'd agree. The country mouse skills he was talking about can be practiced in the city, too, it's just that the local culture thinks they're weird.
I took my kids walking in Prospect Park, in Brooklyn, last summer. My neighbor came along with his two kids, who are the same age as mine. On the walk I was teaching my kids how to identify useful plants and trees, what their uses were ("chew willow bark to cure a headache"), how to built a lean-to, and how to harvest wild edibles. My neighbor, born and raised in Brooklyn, looked at me like I was from Mars. He wouldn't let his kids touch the willow trees or anything else because they might be dirty.
For example, you aren't going to go deer hunting in New York.
I noticed this a few days late, but whatever. There are plenty of places you can go deer hunting in New York, because there's an entire state with that name, and most of it is nothing like NYC. The mistake is rather fitting given the topic, since many NY residents -- especially on the western side of the state -- tend to be rather touchy and even bitter about being ignored and treated like the only part of NY that matters is NYC.
People's general attitude is that, once you leave NYC, everything else in the state is just "flyover country" that nobody gives a fuck about, and there are a lot of pissed off residents because of it. In fact, there's a lot of built-up resentment over NYC because the rest of the state is crumbling and they feel like nobody cares because NYC has a disproportionate amount of control over the entire state, most of which is nothing at all like NYC.
That's the kind of building tension that's been a big part of this election.
Disclaimer: this is just my personal observation of attitudes in the state. I've lived in the NYC area before and I have relatives in other parts of the state, so I've seen both sides of this disconnect.
And now that you've lived in NYC for decades, just how often have you heard the term used by anyone who wasn't already a giant dickweed?Be honest.
I don't hear it from people here who are from "Flyover Country." I do hear it from people who grew up on the East Coast. Most often I have heard it from East Coast natives who are not actually wealthy. They use it to put down people from the MidWest and West as stupid, lesser. The wealthy don't use those terms for people from Flyover Country because they have general contempt for anybody who would identify as "American." They are God's gift, you see, and every other human is equally dreck to them.
Once in a while when somebody from Flyover Country breaks out, they fawn because they know that they themselves have never done anything to deserve their wealth and status.
Those are my observations. There are things I love about the East Coast, but its entrenched classism is definitely not one of them.
Did it ever occur to you that the "coastal elites" are tired of subsidizing your way of life, while giving your votes more influence over politics?
So...we should be grateful to the coastal elites for letting us dwell in their shadow?
That's an interesting take on lickspittle-ism.
did it ever occur to how much of a city's food, water, energy is produced OUTSIDE your rat-infested shithole ?country mice stopped feeding you, there would be full scale zombie breakout in the city within weeks...
It is delusional to believe in a god.
The term "flyover country" is reason alone for this giant middle finger to the coastal elites
Close. If I've ever posted a link for people to read, this is perhaps the most important link I've ever posted:
Yeah Greer is kinda a weirdo but being a weirdo he has an outsiders view of the USA, and being a genius, possibly even smarter than me, however unlikely that is, his insights are always spot on. Yeah don't go to Greer for religious advice, for instance. But he's a freaking genius at sociology stuff like the essay I linked to. He also is the only environmentalist type I've met who actually knows biology and science and isn't just a religious nutter, which is ironic seeing as he's also a druid which normally would imply the opposite.
No shit this is not a rickroll this is possibly the most informative link I've ever posted in my entire posting career.
To summarize, because Greer does suffer from Moldbuggian levels of verbal diarrhea, its not so much a geography thing as a social class thing, and the "establishment globalist cronies" we've had for decades have told the white working class "F you" and have screwed them over and over again and it doesn't matter if they're in Boston or rural WTF-land they finally have a candidate who doesn't outright shit on them so they want a coronation for him.
As an interesting side issue Greer is not a 1488 alt-right dude to say the least but in a weird display of convergent evolution I've heard less well formed versions of Greers argument from 1488 alt-right type podcasts as sort of the founding principles of theoretical alt right politics. Greers all "muh ecosystem" but its fascinating how convergent evolution leads him right to 1488 land. Its almost like reality has an inherent alt-right bias or as if the prog narrative is inherently a faulty dead god past its sell-by date. You'd almost think you're looking at reality instead of spin when multiple paths lead to exactly the same place, crazy that, isn't it?
So if anyone ever read a post of mine and thought it wasn't complete crap, do me a favor and read Greer's essay I linked to above. I've never seen a better essay explaining the current political situation than Greers. Once in awhile that dude is just epic, for the ages, like people are going to read that essay 200 years from now to explain WTF was going on.
I've been following that blog for a few months now and it was the reason that while I was still hoping for Trump to lose, I wasn't thinking it was guaranteed. I don't remember where I first ran across it, but it very well may have been you linking to it in a previous thread.
I'd feel better about Trump winning for those reasons if I believed he was actually doing anything other than pandering. I highly doubt his polices will actually help the rural poor; he was just the only one actually talking to them.
That link is a spot on analysis of why Trump won.
To understand HOW he won, go to http://dilbert.com/ [dilbert.com] and select 'blog'. Scott Adams called this step by step, pretty much 100%.
Seriously, I've been following his blog for about 6 months now. Simply put, he's offered the most insightful deconstruction and analysis of the campaigns, hands down.
Did you ever read his book "The Long Descent", about the slow collapse of civilizations?
He's certainly weird, but I believe he's spot on when he describes the power and importance of story telling in civilizations.
Nobody believes the fairy tale of "we will have economic growth and it will make everything better for everyone" anymore, I think.So we need fresh stories appropriate for our times. Hopefully not stories like "Giant Meteor: just end it all now".
He's certainly weird
Yeah I got into his writings when "peak oil" was not accepted fact and I came into it from the side of petro/energy investor and geologist like about 99% of the people into "peak oil" when it was new, and he was a refreshing breath of fresh air WRT his weird perspective of having something like a self taught phd in ecology combined with woo woo druidic worship.
So we need fresh stories appropriate for our times.
He blog published a 25 part series on sort of a sci fi view of America in a century, pretty hard sci fi stuff, interesting, realistic.
Also he has a bigger group of followers than SN has, maybe 10x bigger, and he's published collections of submitted stories about the future. He must be on his 4th or 5th collected stories book now. Interesting stuff. So if you have hard sci fi, and you exclude space aliens, star trek, utter apocalypse (usually) and the singularity, then you get his interesting collections.
Off topic a fresh story would be something like Moldbug's writings.
but in a weird display of convergent evolution
That's no strange coincidence. As I'm sure you're well aware, some time ago, Germany's national socialists worker's party advocated on those same exact points and arguments using identical rhetoric. Even Trump's avoidance of economic plans and sticking to "points" is part of the strategy: It gives him the freedom to both privatize and nationalize industries and markets on a per-case basis.
It's not necessarily wrong to use moves from that particular playbook. But going as far as demonizing illegals is playing with fire... Well, we'll see.
Have no idea of when it all falls apart
And when it does all fall apart and the country is completely in tatters, bankrupt and in the midst of another great depression and martial law is implemented, somehow it'll be "the libruls" fault, somehow, despite the GOP being in control of EVERYTHING, everything that goes wrong will somehow be because of "the left".
Well, if you really want to get into it, Chris Hedges has made the argument time and time again of how the left is completely divorced from the plebes, which makes room for leaders like Trump to rise to power.
I mean ain't it amazing that the son a millionaire can speak more convincingly to the concerns of the disenfranchised than libruls?
The "left vs. right" meme is tedious, and wrong. Trump and Sanders were tapping into the same wellspring. Trump had the wealth to triumph. Sanders didn't. People who want to smear Trump's victory as one for white supremacists are consciously getting it wrong. It's about an F-you to the media and global elites who have sold them out for 40 years. That's it, and that's all.
It's about an F-you to the media and global elites who have sold them out for 40 years. That's it, and that's all.
Yep. What the poor dumb bastards couldn't see was that Trump is simply leading a different group of elites to continue to do exactly the same things to us.
How do they expect Trump to fix the plight of the working man, restore law and order, when Trump himself doesn't respect the law, and refuses to come to his own table with the union representing his own workers?
I'm not saying there wasn't the same chance that Hillary would fuck us over, but I'm saying there is still a very, very, very, extremely highly likely chance that Trump IS going to fuck us all over.
I expect suicides to climb dramatically in the next week, and I'm not sure I won't be one of them. Hope has truly left us all, and those who foolishly have it are about to become extremely disappointed.
I've lived long enough to see the end of America.
I've lived long enough to see the end of America.
That's fine with me, as long as we get to live long enough to see the end of the global elites, first.
Yeah, that's not going to happen. Enough with the hyperbole. Trump may be a garbage candidate, but he isn't going to destroy everything, just like Obama, Bush, etc. didn't.
Bush did an excellent job of fucking things up.So did Reagan.And Trump is off the charts compared to either of them, they were all normal. Trump is abnormal.
If Trump is "abnormal", then just WTF is Clinton? I mean, seriously, there are very few things about Clinton that even make her appear to be human, let alone "normal". She seems to be one of the lizard people.
Many of us have told you, we would be happy to vote for a woman, but first you've got to nominate a real woman!
Here again I'll agree with you, though you've been an insulting dick elsewhere in the thread. Hillary is not a woman but a creature of pure, unscrupulous, amoral ambition. I'm sure that within 24 hours she and her surrogates are going to start spinning her defeat as proof of America's ongoing misogyny. That's not what this election is about, at all. It's about stated policy, but also about a deeper referendum on the Constitution and the Rule of Law. Despite the cynicism and betrayals, the American people are not yet ready to let go of their attachment to the original American social contract. They still want it to work. They want people who break the law to be punished. They want hard work to be rewarded. They want their government to work for them, not for itself or for the benefit of the elites.
Those are the overriding values, I believe, and gender and every other non-essential factor are in fact non-essential. If Elizabeth Warren had thrown her hat in the ring at the outset, having said what she had said about opportunity and economic equality in America, she would have run away with the election. Her gender would have had nothing to do with it. 1994 was the "Year of the Woman" in politics, but now in 2016 such proclamations are passe. Can you even imagine any news outlet proclaiming 2016 as "The Year of the She-Male" or "The Year of the Gay?" No, of course not, because whatever else has happened, America has moved beyond those kinds of labels.
Hell, it probably doesn't even have to be real. Plastics and silicone are getting pretty advanced nowadays.
One you can grab by the pussy and she'll let you, you mean?
No, retard. A real woman, like my Mama, my sister, my wife, or my daughter in law. You know, WOMEN. People. Not objects, not sexual objects, but PEOPLE who happen to be female. The people who give birth, and nurture most of our helpless fools until we learn to wipe our own arses. You? You don't sound like you've ever shared much of anythine with any woman except your genitalia.
No, retard. A real woman, like my Mama, my sister, my wife, or my daughter in law. You know, WOMEN.
Are you saying we can grab them by the pussy? Very generous of you, but don't you think this shows a patriarchal notion of women as property? I expected more of you, Runaway, and I do not mean more "women".
Trump's tax plan involves cutting the top tax rate to the lowest its ever been, to 25%, and to cut corporate taxes all the way down to 15%. If you've ever paid attention to the facts, you'll notice a correlation between higher taxes of the wealthiest and a healthier, robust economy, and a correlation between lower taxes on the wealthiest and a weak, dying economy. The economy is so, so, so very fucked under his tax plan, and the deficit is going to skyrocket because they'd basically have to shut the federal government down to compensate for the massive loss in revenue.
Did you ever think that the problem might be that the government is spending/wasting too much?
Often the argument is to tax corporations. Corporations don't have magical money that comes from nowhere. It comes from selling products/services. Raise their taxes, it just gets passed along TO YOU as increased prices for their products/services. So arguing for higher taxes is akin to asking for higher taxes on yourself. Make it too difficult/expensive for the wealthy, and businesses to operate in the US, they'll just move somewhere that treats them better.
Another thing to consider is that it's not just the wealthy that get hurt. Anyone who has a retirement (401k , IRA, etc) has their money invested in big corporations. Hurting those corporations hurts the returns of many people's retirements that they've worked hard to accumulate.
Liberals are soo greedy. They want services, and benefits, but it's always someone else who has to pay for them. You never see any wealthy liberals offering to pay extra taxes. They'd rather use the government to compel others, at the point of a gun, to surrender their hard-earned wealth.
To paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, "The problem with Socialism is that you always end up running out of other people's money."
Can anyone really say that the US in is good shape? 19T debt + $100T in unfunded liabilities to failed social programs like Medicare and Social Security.
I would be a millionaire right now, if I could have invested my FICA contributions over the years. Instead, they went into the legal ponzi scheme Social Security and were paid as benefits, or stolen by IOUs made by congress long ago.
Hillary was going to increase taxes by $1T, but raise spending by over $3T. How does that make any fiscal sense?
Someone please show me the math how wasteful government spending has any positive effect on the economy. Do you even know what the economy is?
Obama has spent ass tons of money. We've had stagnant GDP for the last 8 years. I suppose that's all W's fault and it would have been worse, and we should have spent more.
yeah sure. Fools.
Poor corporations, they're having it so hard already, selling to a consolidated market of 350 million of the richest people in the world..
Correlation is not Causation.
A wealthy, healthy people can afford to squander resources on excessive and useless governmental overreach.
Alone, reducing corporate tax is bad. Combined with increasing income tax on the 1% and reforming the tax code... Well, it will serve every single pro-American interest his campaign and even the Republican party ever supported.
As I mentioned in another post, we don't know what Trump will do. All his points can be part of either extreme left, extreme right or extreme center polices.
There is a reason why you keep corporate taxes at same rate as highest tax bracket.
There's an important point to consider here: those people in the Republican majority in government are Establishment picks. They hate Trump as much as Hillary did. They said as much, and many of them publicly said they'd refuse to vote for him. That means that they'll fight Trump as hard as they fought Obama. The only way anything changes on a policy level will be if Trump runs a slate of candidates in the mid-terms that win.
He would need to do a lot of things in the meantime to make that happen, such as cleaning house at the RNC to make sure they're backing Trump-friendly candidates in the mid-term primaries. He would need to craft a ready-made, turnkey "Contract with America" that people could sign onto and that voters would understand. All those things would be second nature for a politician leading an ideology-driven movement. Trump is not that.
Trump does not have a grand plan. He's channeling his own ego and a deep well of anger in America at the elites. He might have skill in the tactical, but he's not strategic. He will be played by deeper strategic thinkers like Putin. But he does have virtues, which carried him: he cares about America, not a trans-national elite. He struck a blow against the economic elites who have been rigging both parties and every avenue of society against America's people for 40 years. Those people can now be afraid, and that makes my heart glad.
Nah, what you are likely to see is a streamlining of the few things Trump and the GOP can agree on (like repealing the ACA, perhaps replaced with something worse, but time will tell), and with any luck a bit of soul-searching from the GOP about how they got here.
In many respects, this is just like the ghost of the Tea Party lingering in halls. The GOP survived that, and they will most likely survive this too, albeit with some changes.
Trump is little more than a figurehead for the dissatisfaction with the GOP and limousine liberals alike.
...Trump and the GOP can agree on (like repealing the ACA...
Doubtful. Dems in the Senate can block whatever and Rep senators won't want to change the rules because they know they'll need 'em some day.
Dem senators will insist on a replacement before any repeal. Rep congress will never agree on a replacement that will appease Dems ( to avoid a filibuster ) AND be able to pass with just Rep votes... so ACA is here to stay.
What is likely is that when this happens, Trump will issue an exemption for 'everyone' and order the IRS to not keep track... and there is precedent for this. Obama was handing out exemptions like candy for a while...
> he cares about America
You've got to be joking. Trump cares about Trump. He doesn't give a damn about the country beyond what it can do for him. Sure he says things about loving america. But how many times does the man have to tell bald-faced lies before you stop taking his words at face value?
> He struck a blow against the economic elites who have been rigging both parties and every avenue of society against America's people for 40 years.
Have you read anything about his tax plan? [vox.com] Its the biggest dick-suck of economic elites in recent memory. He's revised it 3 times now, and each time it ends up even more favorable to the rich.
The man is literally a trans-national elite, with properties in foreign countries (remember that golf resort in Scottland that he traveled to in the middle of campaigning?) and over-seas manufacturing of his schwag (not to mention Ivanka's stuff is nearly all off-shored).
OK, you win, AC. Everybody else is wrong. You're the genius. That's why Hillary won the election. Oh, wait, she didn't.
I hate to play that card, but it's also true. Hillary intended to perpetuate the economic warfare the elites have been waging on the American public for 40 years, and everyone knew it. Trump has stated he will do different. Trump promised a different policy tack. He may, or may not, follow through on that. Hillary, though, had already proven that she was blowing smoke up everyone's ass.
I'm not disputing he said those things and that people who wanted to believe it did so - that's how con men work.I'm disputing your analysis that he meant those things.
Clinton didn't lose because she's proven anything. Name one concrete way in which she "blew smoke up everyone's ass."
She lost because hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent over the last couple of decades blowing smoke up the public's ass to convince them there must actually be a forest fire.
Benghazi -- bullshitHates coal miners -- bullshit [politifact.com]email server -- bullshit (as Comey has now said, twice)etc
Also, she's a woman and we have no cultural touchstone for imperfect women in charge, so lacking a box to fit her into, she made people uncomfortable.
"people who wanted to believe it did so - that's how con men work."
You understand that, but you still back Clinto? Jesus H. Christ, you've been conned.
The Clintons have been con artists since they sat is a shack in Mena Arkansas, divvying up money from the sale of marijuana flown in from Mexico. And - you have FAITH in them?
Where did the AC stated they supported Clinton? Being anti-Trump does not make one pro-Clinton you fucking moron. Stop seeing the world in black and white tribalism. There is no "For us or against us", there's a billion different shades of gray in between. Benghazi was bullshit (the Sec of State can't deploy troops!), and the email thing was total bullshit too. Defense of these facts does not make one pro-Clinton, it makes one pro-fucking-reality and not fucking delusional or so far fucking gone into tribalism that they're denying reality itself.
Sigh. It's a curious fate, to agree with Runaway so many times in a day. The Clintons are grifters. It is who they are. It is in their nature. I ran digital for Bill Clinton's Foundation for 2.5 years. I sat in the meetings where they worked those deals out. I've seen it happen. All the "we want to help the people" stuff is a smokescreen. It is their con.
They haven't been convicted for doing that because they pass their corruption through at least one point of indirection. Our anti-corruption laws were designed for 2-party, direct quid-pro-quo, and as such cannot address the 3rd party corruption the Clintons practice. But what they do is thoroughly corrupt.
Most Americans, in their hearts, know that's true. I know it's true because I had access to the hard data of who supports the Clintons. Their contributors stem mainly from the Upper West Side of Manhattan, with another cluster in Hollywood and Silicon Valley, and a smattering elsewhere besides. No regular people give them money. It is because they sense on a visceral level that the Clintons are on the take, and they themselves don't want to be played for patsies. And why? They know that the Clintons don't give a crap about them and would never countenance a quid-pro-quo for them.
After DECADES of telling rural folk that they were too stupid to vote in their own self interests, they were all racist (especially in the South where they don't have gated communities to isolate them from racial tensions), and after watching their communities fall apart and troves of assistance being planted in the inner cities...
It may be that Republicans aren't much help, but at least they aren't openly hostile.
Less than Trump, this was open notice for the GOP to get their shit together.
Because it's not like the liberals are gonna help.
Maybe there is already such a "Contract with America" written -- just not by Trump.
I remember about 9/11 that there was this big P.A.T.R.I.O.T. law already written, just to be shoe-ed into legislation at the right time.
It would be interesting if the Project For a New American Century has already written an A.P.P.L.E.P.I.E. law, 400 pages, which Trump will sign as first act as president, to cement the powers behind the throne. The Republicans won all three, presidency, senate and house of representatives, so anything goes. Only Commies don't appreciate applepie!
Yeah, fuck those people trying to make the world a better place.
Many of these millennials seem to think that bullying and throwing the adult equivalent of a temper tantrum is the way to get what you want.
Well, the young'uns are hardly the only ones who seem to think that. You remember the government shutdown? :P
Whose side are you saying the millennials were on? Clinton's? Bernie's? You talk about "bullying and degrading" but there was a fair amount of that on both sides. I'm not sure how to interpret your comment.
Many of these millennials seem to think that bullying and throwing the adult equivalent of a temper tantrum is the way to get what you want.Well, the young'uns are hardly the only ones who seem to think that. You remember the government shutdown? :P
Also, one might think that Trump's political campaign was one year-and-a-half-long temper tantrum by the biggest bully in the country. Unfortunately, the biggest takeaway appears to be that shameless, bullying, temper tantrums sometimes win. :-(
No no fuck those people who are trying to make the world a better place.
Or did you mean that millennial ideologues are better in caring about the world than others? Because I think we, on the other side, just know better.
I can care harder than you! ;)
I care softly :D
FWIW, I wrote "Establishment picks." Your formulation doesn't not work, though.
It's not just the RNC and DNC and media who lost last night, but every other Establishment constituent. Silicon Valley, Hollywood, Wall Street, and all the rest who made common cause with Hillary just had their legs cut out from under them. That's epic.
Now, most rational actors among those would look at those results and think, "gee, we ought to change our ways and get right with the world." But all of us plebes know they won't. We all know they'll double-down and try to co-opt Trump the way they do everyone and everything else. It's in their nature.
Trump may or may not hold true to the people who put him in office. He is a businessman, and will likely do what businessmen do and cut deals for preferential treatment.
FWIW, I wrote "Establishment picks."
So you did. It was a long night, just woke up when I wrote that post. People keep saying election day should be a federal holiday. I think the day after should be one. Election hangover day. Still, I kind of like my misinterpretation better :)
Still, I kind of like my misinterpretation better :)
How do you know Trump doesn't have an ideology or a strategy? The only thing we know about Trump is that he has almost no political debts keeping him from doing whatever he wants to win the next elections.
whose to say Trump isn't a closet national socialist? A Sanders in hiding?
Sure he'll take down Obama-care... Only to replace it with a real health-care system.
Yeah he'll build a wall... Right before nationalizing everyone left over at the US's side of the wall.
True he'll clean DC from corruption... By breaking apart 3 letter agencies and moving funds and personal to border control as he legalizes Marijuana.
That's the thing: Trump kept all his cards to himself. We can look at what he said and twist it any way we'd like. He too, can align with short-term or long-term party interests the way he sees fit since everything he promised can be turned around as either. He's not indebted to one corporation or the next so so long as he ends up with enough big projects for contractors, the party will get their funds from somewhere.
Really, anything can happen now.
You know what? I can't argue with you. You could be entirely correct. All I have to go on is what the guy has said and done. He is a wild card. He could do anything. What he does could wind up being something truly awful. For the moment, though, can we enjoy the chance of possibility in the uncertainty? Hillary was warmed-over dogshit and we all knew it.
I've read a number of your posts. Agreed for the msot part, but just had to comment on this one and say...I like you. Clear, concise, to the point. Can I nitpick?Warmed over? He shit smells to the point of being a fresh drop on a Texas Highway in the middle of summer...in a drought.
Thank you for the smile.
I already reached the conclusion it's better to have a random candidate over a corrupt one when Obama compromised over a proper health care bill instead of quitting the office to force new elections.
So in this run, when the gory details regarding Hillary's campaign against Sanders leaked, I concluded it's better to dice roll with Trump then take another run with the same kind of politics.
Not sure where you got that idea about how things work. If the President quits, the Vice President becomes President, and serves until the end of the original President's term. There are no "new elections" involved.
I'm not saying he shouldn't have done something different (IMO, the ACA is an abomination where everybody loses except possibly the insurance companies), but resigning from office would definitely not have helped.
(If we're looking for things he could have done instead: one lever the President has, but never seems to use, is to simply veto everything until such time as Congress passes his agenda. I'm not saying the solution to our problems is even more obstructionism, but it is a powerful threat that could probably be deployed to good effect once every decade or two.)
Nah a president can force snap elections in the US through a presidential order to disband & quit the office\government. This returns the ball to the house and sente who have to decide on a date for new elections since they can't appoint officials.
It's been considered in the past as well as done in other presidential systems.
He struck a blow against the economic elites who have been rigging both parties and every avenue of society against America's people for 40 years. Those people can now be afraid, and that makes my heart glad.
Sure, he's gonna burn shit down. But when the smoke clears, we all know who will have maneuvered their way back on top. You said yourself that "[h]e will be played by deeper strategic thinkers". Putin is his own thing; what about Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, and their ilk? The Democratic elite is about as down-and-out as the Republican elite was in 2008 or 2012; there will be blowback from that corner. And that still ignores the massive array of power players outside of the political spotlight: CEOs, hedge fund managers, real estate developers, weapons dealers, drug traffickers...the list of powerful people goes on, and none of them stand to lose from a Trump presidency.
You're right. But could you maybe give us a 48 hour grace period to imagine something else might happen before you say this? Thanks be a pal bye.
This is the perfect example of a False Dichotomy.
Trump or Clinton we get basically the same shit. Trump being a con man can't be trusted, and his viewpoints shifted based on who he was talking to and what they wanted to hear. The only "establishment" that got pissed off are basically the political parties. The GOP got infiltrated by an ex-democrat who has made them look really bad, and the DNC lost to a buffoon and had their dirty secrets aired to the world.
The elites? They don't give a shit, Trump is one of them and will hand them everything they ever wanted because *hint* that is what HE has always wanted. And he will get extremely nice kickbacks for it.
FALSE DICHOTOMY, make the people think they're doing something that matters. What blows my mind is that people think there is much of a difference between HRC and DT, I guess time will tell if I am mistaken.
while the popular vote goes o the dems...rigged system indeed.
You've been reading to much of MSM. Shut the television off, and start learning about PEOPLE. Not one woman in my family was willing to vote for the vagina. Got that? The vagina lost, plain and simple. All across this country, women were offended at Hillary's attitude that she somehow "deserved" the office. At least Trump didn't come across as the bitch with a silver spoon inserted in every orifice in her body.
The people who think in liberal terms have Trump all wrong. He's not a Republican. He's an oportunits, who used to be liberal, and has close ties to as many, or more, liberals than to conservatives. Trump simply IS NOT a real republican.
For that reason, Trump is a lame duck president, from the moment he is sworn in. "His own party" is going to be just as obstructionist toward him, as they have been toward O'Bummer.
Trump has never taken that stupid damned pledge "no new taxes", or any of that other bullshit. He's not an insider. If anything, he USED TO BE a fringe hanger-onner of the left's inside. He has NEVER been an insider on the right.
Trump willl accomplish very little if anything, in his four years in office. Trump almost certainly WILL NOT be reelected.
Stop worrying about Trump, people. He's pretty much a nobody. He didn't so much "win" this election, as the Republicans puked this election. They couldn't find any of their insiders who the public would accept. They couldn't force feed the America people any more of their defecated party line. Trump is the people's answer to the neocons and the corporate lackeys, on the Republican side.
Pretty much the same thing happened on the other side - the PEOPLE wanted Bernie. But, the party had already made all the moves to ensure that the people's voice wasn't heard.
Now - if I could only figure out how to email Hillary a stroke . . . . . God knows I despise the Clintons.
Now, everyone sit back, and enjoy four seasons of comedy in Washington. The Buffoon in Chief is certain to make us all laugh. That is SO MUCH better than the alternative.
Oh the stock markets and futures? That is just the rich sons of bitches way of punishing us for rejecting their Annointed One. Same thing happened when O'Bummer won. Don't sweat the small shit.
Huh, what a time, eh, Runaway, that I should agree with you so much? Trump is a lame duck, too. He only represents a message from Americans to the elites, "F-you!" It's possible that he puts together a team that fundamentally changes the policy landscape of the United States. But he probably won't, because he mainly cares about his own ego, first, last, and always.
Well, basically, facts are facts. And, people are so wrapped up in partisan non-issues, they neglect to see basic facts. Who really, seriously, gives a damn about such things as gay marriage, when our jobs and our wealth have been shipped overseas for the past thirty years? Gays have never threatened to take my wealth from me! The "establishment" works daily to strip me of more wealth. There are real issues to focus on, but most people prefer to watch the smoke and mirrors show put on by the liberals, and to listen to the doom-and-gloom horror shows from the "war on terra" crowd.
Issues. Some of those issues, Trump has given lip service to. I have little idea if he'll actually adress tham as president. I'm certain that if he does adress real issues, congress will do all it can to block him.
Issues. Real issues is where it is all at. Maybe - just maybe - we will see some of them addressed now that the media circus is over?
> Who really, seriously, gives a damn about such things as gay marriage
Yes, that's right.
> our jobs and our wealth
Yes, so true.
> The "establishment" works daily to strip me of more wealth
As you say, it is this more than any other issue. Establishment Republicans caused the Great Recession. Then Democrats didn't do near enough about the robbery and looting. Despite all their talk, they aren't standing with the people against this corrupt establishment, they are the establishment. One thing I very much dislike about talk of wealth redistribution is the implicit thought that the rich earned the money. Much of it they didn't, they stole it. They steal from us with legalized insider trading, golden parachutes, over the top pay, free police service paid for by the public, and favorable laws and tax deals. It's total bull that earned income is taxed at a higher rate than unearned, 25% vs 15%. That tax is not flat. Crap like Roth IRAs and 529 education funds help those who need it least. Allowing mortgage payments to be deducted is no help to renters. You have to have money to benefit from them. If you're unemployed, you just get screwed on the Roth, not allowed to contribute even if you have any savings and didn't need the money to pay the rent. Then there's the theft of our local tax dollars whenever Wall Street chisels a muni. And there's the outrageous tax dodging big corporations pull. Did Apple, currently the wealthiest company in the world, manage not to pay any tax at all? Stop this theft, and there will be no need of Robin Hood.
If I wanted to vote to reform Wall Street, Hillary wasn't the one. I preferred Bernie. As for Trump, I fear America got conned.
Establishment Republicans caused the Great Recession.
The greatest lie sold to and bought buy the American people in my lifetime regards the events leading up to the Great Recession. Nobody even mentions the subprime mortgage crisis and the bursting of the housing bubble anymore. Instead, it's just the worst economic period since the Great Depression and of course caused by the evil Republicans and greedy banks (when were banks ever not greedy?). However, there was something called the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 http://loans.org/mortgage/articles/community-reinvestment-act-and-mortgage-loan-crisis/ [loans.org] under Jimmy Carter's administration (D) that forced banks into approving loans they knew would be defaulted on. Thus, was the beginning of the housing bubble. Now why is this the greatest lie? This is the lie that produced Obama. The economy under his administration led to the weakest recovery since WWII http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/07/29/seven-years-later-recovery-remains-the-weakest-of-the-post-world-war-ii-era/ [wsj.com]. The establishment Republicans still deserve their share of the blame, but for a different reason: not being able to explain this to the people.
I've heard that one before. It's a huge contortion to blame the housing bubble of the 2000s on a late 1970s Carter era law. If it was such a terrible law, why didn't it cause problems right away instead of 30 years later? What about the repeal of Glass-Steagall in the late 1990s, why isn't that mentioned? Funny how one act from the 1970s gets singled out for the blame, while dozens of more recent changes are passed over.
That 1970s legislation is the act that shut down redlining, the unfair practice of discriminating against poor and colored people with higher interest rates or just plain refusal of loans, despite the absence of sound reasons to conclude that they are higher risk. Many critics of that act are motivated by racism, not financial reform. That bit about forcing banks to make loans that will be defaulted on is a total lie. The act says very clearly that activity is to be undertaken in a safe and sound manner.
He's not a Republican. He's an oportunits, who used to be liberal, and has close ties to as many, or more, liberals than to conservatives. Trump simply IS NOT a real republican.
Ha, ha, ha. [theintercept.com] He certainly has fooled you. He is just as establishment as all the alternatives. He is going to be sucking K-street's dick.
But keep in mind that Trump isn't really a Republican. There is no reason to expect congress to deliver legislation at his request, or to even tailor legislation to his liking.
People who denigrate others as being worthy only of being flown over -- deserve a double fuck you.
Chris Christie is a beautiful phoenix.
Some celebrities have been talking about how they will move to Canada or Australia if Trump wins the election. We don't want whiny people that run away when they don't get their way. We don't want quitters. If they try to come here we will build a wall and make you pay for it!
You mean, like those Europeans who decided not to stay in Europe and improve things there, but instead ran away to the "new world"? I guess you're a descendant of those.
Pretty hard to improve things when all power derives from who your daddy was... Not to mention that a minority of colonists were political or religious refugees, most came trying to make big money and own land, which was impossible in the old world where nobles had almost everything. Then you can jump into the whole "native blood" thing, my ancestors never (at least not in recorded history) came to the new world... the old world came to us.
Pretty hard to improve things when all power derives from who your daddy was...
It's interesting to see that argument marshalled in defense of Donald Trump, whose power derives almost entirely from who his daddy was. I mean, he's not the first, by any means (Exhibit A: George W Bush), but Trump is rich because his dad was able to lend him a few million to get started, and introduced him to all of the political players in New York, and not-infrequently bailed him out, and then when Fred died Donald inherited a fortune that is approximately twice as much as he has now. Had Donald Trump not been born into money and power, he would maybe be running a successful car dealership.
Hillary Clinton isn't all that much better, since her power was derived almost entirely from who her husband was.
I was NOT defending Trump. I didn't vote for him, don't expect anything good from him, and the only reason I'm not freaking out right now is because I had resigned myself to getting fucked today when Bernie didn't get the Dem spot. I was responding to the previous poster's comment, no more, no less.
Fair enough. My point was that the US has a hereditary aristocracy just as assuredly as other countries, even if we aren't actually calling people "Duke" or "Baron" or "Earl".
I think his point was most people who came here were not escaping anything. They were coming here to make their fortune. Fast forward to today and that fortune is not as easy to get as most of it has been locked up at this point just as in the rest of the world.
Read the right conspiracy sites and they all end in the rothchilds :)
Pretty hard to improve things when all power derives from who your daddy was
Something I find fascinating about that situation is humanity almost always reverts or overshoots to the mean. We have an entire industry of "infotainment" focusing on spoiled children of rich people dying of drug addiction or wasting away or whatever foolishness. Lottery winners that lose it all in a matter of years. Pro sports athletes who are selling cars five years after retirement because the money is all gone.
So a dude who takes the usual million bucks and turns it into billions and a presidency is well into the "man bites dog" territory of human oddity.
Not your average rich dads spoiled punk son, no, not this one.
We hanged the royalty, remember? There isn't a single Duke, not a Knight, none of that stupid shit here. No king, no queen, despite the fact that our presidents seem to WISH they could be kings.
Basically, we left all the dead baggage in Europe.
Well, now you have a king. Do you believe Trump will ever step down voluntarily? Do you believe anyone can make him step down?
We've heard that same stuff about Herr Bush 2, about Clinton, about O'bummer, and now you're predicting the same for Trump.
The day that a sitting president imposes martial law and/or suspends elections, I WILL head out the door, armed for bear - errrr - feds. Trump will step down when it is time to step down.
Except this is a guy who said he wouldn't accept the results of the election as legitimate unless he won, and when he had the chance to retract it he doubled down on it. Think about that for a minute. Really think about it. Please look past your tribalism for a minute and actually think about the implications of a statement like that.
Gore? Bush? Neither of them accepted the results of the election, and it was kicked to the Supreme Court, remember? The fact that I don't accept the results of an election doesn't mean I'm going to overthrow the government.
And, if in Trump's case, that IS what it meant, well, there are contingency plans for coup attempts.
I pulled the SSA.gov actuarial table using google and a 78 year old dude has less than a decade, so he's not likely to outdo FDR, regardless.
Of course, doesn't smoke, doesn't drink, health in general, maybe longer, maybe.
> like those Europeans who decided not to stay in Europe and improve things there, but instead ran away to the "new world"
Hey! this is not respectful.
You forgot they successfully genocided the natives, too. **ducks**
Their exodus might be slightly delayed [businessinsider.de]...
One relevant actual technology point about all of this: the Canadian immigration website was effectively DDOS'd to death last night.
If they try to come here we will build a wall and make you pay for it!
no need for it, already overpledged [brickingitforcanada.com]
Thankfully the article What Happens When Crowds Try to Flee for Their Lives [soylentnews.org] was posted just before this one...
This was bound to happen when the Cubs won the world series.
> This was bound to happen when the Cubs won the world series.
You joke, but there is a correlation between teams losing and voters from that city voting against incumbents if the election is within a few days of that loss.. Ohio might have gone to the democrats if Cleveland had won.
Or if they had used paper ballots [wired.com]...
Here is a better link on Ohio regarding their failure to use a voting method that is auditable.
Ohio actually turned off what limited security there ever was [democracynow.org] in the so-called voting machines. So in a state that actually decided the outcome of the election, it is not even remotely possible by any method to prove a correlation between the tallies the machines produce and the numbers voters thought they put into the machines.
Ha! Visit Ohio sometime. Clinton would never have won.
You know what? I told you guys that was the end of the world...
See? I told you. When the thrice-cursed team, the Chicago Cubs, defy the power of a just curse and win the World Series, then you know for sure that epochal things are afoot.
I did tell you.
The Latino Vote Varies By State - Farai Chideya
To many people’s surprise, Trump won more Latino voters than Romney did in 2012.
Here’s how the firm Latino Decisions found the Latino vote broke out by state, for Clinton and Trump.
Arizona — 84-12California — 80-16Colorado — 81-16Florida — 67-31Illinois — 86-10Nevada — 81-16North Carolina — 82-15New York — 88-10Ohio — 80-17Texas — 80-16Virginia — 81-15Wisconsin — 87-10
Trump’s margin among Latino voters in Florida, though thinner than it has been for Republican candidates in past races, likely helped him win that critical state.
A portion of this i believe is the tendency towards identity politics, especially from the left; think all minorities are automatically on their side.
It's not like Hispanics don't also have concerns about crime coming over from south of the border, and while not supporting a wall, labeling those concerns as racist just misses the point.
The last time I talked with my grandmother while she was still alive she said "don't hang out to anyone from Mexico, even your cousins, they're all criminals." Well, actually she said a whole bunch in Spanish and my aunt translated but yeah.
Also known as the "Only FDR, a democrat, would put all the Japanese ancestry Americans in interment camps" argument.
People didn't learn that lesson a few years ago in California.
There, the Latino vote passed the constitutional amendment against gay marriage. But, no one understands what that means. Latinos aren't a liberal people, by nature. Generally speaking, Latinos are much more "tolerant" than liberals - in certain ways. But, they are also much more INTOLERANT than conservatives in this county, in other ways.
Latinos are different. They aren't the descendants of Europeans who came a-conquering. Mostly, they are predominantly Native Americans, the descendants of the Azteca, who were forced to "accept" the Catholic church. Latinos, or more properly, Mexicans, aren't like us. They have a different view on life.
Those Latinos are going to vote for the person who more closely represents their ideals. The strumpet from Arkiesaw represents no one's ideals, certainly not Latino ideals.
I've long suspected that the Republican party can absorb latino/hispanic and black voters. Moreso than Trump did, certainly. Trump isn't going to cut it just yet, despite any outperformance of Romney. But now we'll likely get to see something else: the President Donald John Trump reelection campaign of 2020. He'll have his chance to convince with actions instead of words.
Half of my building in Brooklyn is occupied by an extended Latino family of Mexican descent. They are all Republicans; my downstairs neighbor, the second son, ran for State Assembly as the Republican candidate for this district. As surprising as it might be to some, Latinos are not a Democratic monolith.
Not like there's a "euro" outlook on life, given that in theory we've got status signalling prog true believers, skilled union tradesmen, corrupt crony capitalism city dwellers, rural Utah Mormons with five poly wifes, crazy college SJWs, all theoretically "euro white people".
It turns into something like the IQ debates where theres no question that the averages vary by race and that there's simultaneously substantial overlap in curve area and more variation inside races than between races. As I currently, possibly inaccurately, statistically understand it.
We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.
We publish as fast as our resources will allow and as fast as the public can absorb it.
That is our commitment to ourselves, to our sources, and to the public.
This is not due to a personal desire to influence the outcome of the election. The Democratic and Republican candidates have both expressed hostility towards whistleblowers. I spoke at the launch of the campaign for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, because her platform addresses the need to protect them. This is an issue that is close to my heart because of the Obama administration’s inhuman and degrading treatment of one of our alleged sources, Chelsea Manning. But WikiLeaks publications are not an attempt to get Jill Stein elected or to take revenge over Ms Manning’s treatment either.
Publishing is what we do. To withhold the publication of such information until after the election would have been to favour one of the candidates above the public’s right to know.
This is after all what happened when the New York Times withheld evidence of illegal mass surveillance of the US population for a year until after the 2004 election, denying the public a critical understanding of the incumbent president George W Bush, which probably secured his reelection. The current editor of the New York Times has distanced himself from that decision and rightly so.
As someone who has enjoyed him eviscerating the DNC with their own words. RNC next please.
Don't worry, Russia doesn't care about who wins, they just want to fuck over the US.So expect tons of leaks on the new boss at the worst possible time for the country.
Trump is going to be the first US president to be impeached and actually go to prison.
Why would that happen? They pretty much gave a former secretary of state who broke all sorts of laws a free pass.
You think the rules they broke for her they wouldnt do for him? Even Nixon got a free pass.
> They pretty much gave a former secretary of state who broke all sorts of laws a free pass.
In this post-factual election, that is totally true.
Well there in a nutshell is why it matters to me not one whit if the New York Times goes under. They have cast their lot with the 1%, and their fortunes are now inextricably tied to theirs. In every generation there will be a need for truth-tellers, and in this of ours the New York Times has surrendered that accolade to WikiLeaks.
Don't blame me; I voted for Johnson. Hey, at least we will have the hottest first lady in history. Scary four years ahead.
They'll blame you, they'll blame sexism, they'll blame third parties, and/or they'll blame people who didn't vote. They'll blame everyone but themselves, even though they put forth a candidate who was total dog shit (not that Trump isn't). People who voted for Hillary in the primaries should learn their lesson, but I fear they won't.
In an odd way, this has has been the alternate reality version of when Ron Paul ran last. Same cold shoulder from the RNC, same hysterics from the left, and the same smugness from the major parties.
That really clarified the left for me when the anti-war protestors packed-up upon Obama's arrival. So no, I don't think they will learn, but at least the stranglehold has been broken for now.
First on their list of people the Democrats are likely to blame: Bernie Sanders and his supporters [slate.com]. The Clinton people hated Bernie Sanders with a passion they never really unleashed on Trump. Why? Because if Bernie had won, they were all out of a job as he cleaned house, whereas with a Trump victory they can just get back to raising $2700 at a time from rich donors for the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee 2018. Sanders threatened their system and their livelihoods far more than Trump did.
And yes, they are already blaming sexism [salon.com], ignoring the fact that the problem for many wasn't with women in general but Hillary Clinton in particular. Furthermore, the simple fact that they would routinely respond to very legitimate criticism of Hillary Clinton with "You're only saying that because she's a woman" was completely unhelpful to Hillary Clinton and to combating sexism. As in, I would mention something like "But what about escalating the civil war in Syria?" and get back "Sexism!"
I'm sure they'll at some point claim that Jill Stein cost them the election. But she didn't, not even close. (For that matter, Ralph Nader didn't in 2000 either [reason.com] despite the constant drumbeat of "Remember Ralph Nader" whenever a liberal-type person considers breaking away from the Democratic Party.)
And of course, some are blaming Julian Assange, some are blaming James Comey, and still others are blaming Vladimir Putin. Of course, none of that would have mattered had (a) Clinton used the email system provided by the US State Department like everybody else for her official emails, and (b) not been engaged in unethical practices left and right. I mean, imagine if everybody who had looked through the emails came away with the impression "Wow, what a dedicated and intelligent public servant, with a team around her of really smart people with an eye towards what's best for America and her citizens." That's not what they found, despite attempt after attempt by Clinton allies in the media to downplay what was there.
But the reality is very simple: Roughly 2/3 of Trump supporters said they knew he was a scumbag, but absolutely couldn't under any circumstances back Clinton. And the blame for that falls squarely on Clinton.
A hot first lady, and an east European immigrant (I think she was from the old Yugoslavia, now Slovenia).
Doesn't really match with Trump being xenophobic and anti foreigner. I guess at worst you can say he is selective about the cadre of immigrants he wants to let in, which is a perfectly sane and reasonable policy.
She was one of those illegals that Donnie keeps blathering about.
Melania Trump Was an Undocumented Worker in America [alternet.org]When Trump refers to "undocumented workers" in his scare-tactic campaign speeches, he likely doesn't mean his career model wife who, according to AP, accepted payment for 10 modeling jobs in the U.S. though she didn't have the legal documentation to work in the country in 1996.
Melania Trump Was an Undocumented Worker in America [alternet.org]
When Trump refers to "undocumented workers" in his scare-tactic campaign speeches, he likely doesn't mean his career model wife who, according to AP, accepted payment for 10 modeling jobs in the U.S. though she didn't have the legal documentation to work in the country in 1996.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
From your own link [alternet.org], Melania had legal permission to be in the USA. What she didn't have, as your link claims, is permission to work as a model. However, she DID obtain said permission less than two months later - and with the "speed" at which federal bureaucrats work, it is almost certain that such permission had been applied for long before and was more or less already "in the bag" unofficially when she set foot in the USA.
This is a far, FAR cry from Melania being the stereotypical "illegal alien" that your subject line claims was the case.
So did I. It was a toss-up until the very end - Stein or Johnson. Holding the ballot in my hand and reading it one more time, it struck me that I could, for once in my life, vote nearly a straight party ticket. I voted for the Libertarian presidential candidate, the Libertarian senate candidate, two state Libertarians, and I voted against every single unopposed incumbent. I voted for ONE republican, because he is a better choice than the pinhead Democrat running against him. Only ONE person from either of the two major parties got my vote.
Then, I voted in favor of casinos, in favor of the sale of alcohol in my "dry county", I voted against three basically administrative measures, I voted for two measures decrimiinalizing marijuana, and pushed the button to review my choices. All good, push "enter".
And, our electronic polling machines actually print a paper for each and every ballot.
Mine, too. That's how extremely deformed political reality has become. The 1% have fully captured both parties in the US, so the rest of the 99% suddenly find themselves standing shoulder-to-shoulder despite previously thinking themselves on opposite sides of the spectrum.
I did basically the same thing but voted Donald Duck where anyone was running unopposed since there wasn't a Fuck You option.
The State is big enough
Fek the Republic of California. It's already a different country than the US. Always has been.
The entire western seaboard voted the same color (is blue dems or reps? I assume dems since it is all liberal-y over there.)
If the whole seaboard seceded it could create a new country with the western portions of Canada, and perhaps everything down through Baja that would more closely match culturally than with the rest of the US, Canada, or Mexico.
But then you'd be ignoring the very significant divisions within those states. Washington State, outside Seattle, is deep red. Oregon, outside Portland and Eugene, the same. California, with the exception of the Bay Area and LA, the same. So really you'd be talking about a half-dozen city-states surrounded by red-staters.
You really need to look at how the COUNTIES voted. It's not the "entire seaboard", it's a few islands of blue within an ocean of blue.
Image from this page:http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about/ [cracked.com]
Dude, please. No, really, please. I'll contribute to the cause. Hell, I'll even show up with a gun to help you against the military. Just GTFO and stay TFO.
What? The people clamoring for more federal power over the last decade is now for state rights?
Consistency and an ability to recognize their own hypocrisy hasn't really been their strong suit.
It's like the entire mythology has just been shattered before their eyes, and their broken minds are just grasping for any frail thread.
Its the same kind of idiots who are like, "Oh, I need to move abroad now!" The people I've heard saying this are by and large straight and white.
Irrespective of whatever else is going to happen now, one this is sure: comedians are going to have a bumper crop (like they did when Dubya was elected). Something tells me that Trump will provide them with plenty of source material.
Doh! I meant to write: Irrespective of whatever else is going to happen now, one thing is sure
Except drumpf doesn't handle criticism well, so they can expect a visit from the national law enforcement agencies he'll have at his control if they dare make fun of him.
Y'all gonna find out what actual government censorship looks like now.
You ain't fucking kidding. He plans to gut both the first [redstate.com] and fourteenth [lgbtqnation.com] amendments pretty damn quick, as as extremely authoritarian is the guy is, the fourth and fifth are going to be fucked too.
Something tells me that Trump will provide them with plenty of source material.
By doing his really bad Alec Baldwin impressions?
'What Happens When Crowds Try to Flee for Their Lives'
I guess we will be finding out soon enough :)
There is hope and change, but it isn't in the USA, Russia, China, the EU, or anywhere calling itself an (ne)eyes country.
Truly someone wished us to live in interesting times.
Yeah, some people [4chan.org].
Oh dear. Images didn't load for me on that site (NoScript and all that). I have a sneaking suspicion that saved me from having to wash my eyeballs tonight.
Its /pol/ not /b/.
/b/ is the board requiring brain bleach, stuff you want to unsee.
/pol/ is just memes. Triggering memes. Now that CTR is unpaid and off the job /pol/ is getting back to normal, BTW, it was looking pretty dumpy a week or so ago.
A +1 Informative to any being that can translate the above post into a comprehensible form of a Terran language.
>Its /pol/ not /b/.
he's talking about 4chan.org. 4chan has different boards you can post to. "/pol/" is one board that is specifically for talking about politics. "/b/" is the board for talking about anything you want.
>/b/ is the board requiring brain bleach, stuff you want to unsee.
/b/ is often nsfw (not safe for work) even when there are no images involved.
>/pol/ is just memes.
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meme [wikipedia.org] ...
A meme (/ˈmiːm/ meem) is "an idea, behavior, or style that spreads from person to person within a culture". A meme acts as a unit for carrying cultural ideas, symbols, or practices that can be transmitted from one mind to another through writing, speech, gestures, rituals, or other imitable phenomena with a mimicked theme. Supporters of the concept regard memes as cultural analogues to genes in that they self-replicate, mutate, and respond to selective pressures."
A lot of memes get created and spread on /pol/
>/pol/ contains a lot of posts which are Triggering memes.
/pol/ has a lot of memes which cause their opponents to rage and froth at the mouth.
>Now that CTR is unpaid and off the job /pol/ is getting back to normal,
from http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/people/correct-the-record [knowyourmeme.com] ...
"Correct the Record (CTR) is an independent-expenditure only committee, also known as a Super PAC, which maintains a large presence on social media to promote and defend the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton."
so presumably CTR is no longer posting to /pol/ therefore /pol/ posts more resemble what they were before the run up to the election.
>BTW, it was looking pretty dumpy a week or so ago.
not sure about this line tho.
President-elect Trump will be less important than his Supreme Court choices.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg will try to live out his first term, but she is 83 and has already battled cancer.
That's a probable 2 seat minimum right there.
Give Trump 8 years and he could remake the Court.
She already claimed she was going to step down if he won. Now lets see if she actually carries through on it.
RBG has said a lot of things she regrets recently. She has said too much.
I don't have a source for "she will hang in there" (it was talk) but I will look into it later.
> President-elect Trump will be less important than his Supreme Court choices.
I think you underestimate how much damage an ADHD Trump + a republican congress can do.
I'm oddly sanguine about scotus appointments. I think all of his promises about the scotus will go out the window now that he's won. He is a transactional man and he gains nothing by keeping those promises since there is nothing in it for him. He's more likely to appoint sycophants than scalias. They'll probably be total dumbshits, but they won't believe in republican orthodoxy.
No, you OVERestimate the importance of Trump. Whackos are afraid he'll nuke Mexico? FFS, some of you need to get a grip. There are laws in place that restrict the president's freedom of action. He can't just go off half-cocked, and start doing whatever the hell he wants.
Now, if Trump really had free reign, like in a monarchy, then we would indeed have reason to fear Trump.
You clearly don't understand how modern monarchies work.
Queen Elizabeth has no control of the UK's nuclear weapons, she cannot issue directives to the police, security or military forces without the approval of Parliament. She is the titular head of the country and its forces but she has ceded all real control to Parliament. I cannot think of a European monarchy that has the powers that you are suggesting that they have in your statement.
Try reading wikipedia [wikipedia.org]:
The monarch and his or her immediate family undertake various official, ceremonial, diplomatic and representational duties. As the monarchy is constitutional, the monarch is limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours and appointing the Prime Minister. The monarch is, by tradition, commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces. Though the ultimate formal executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still by and through the monarch's royal prerogative, these powers may only be used according to laws enacted in Parliament and, in practice, within the constraints of convention and precedent.
He was referring to the generic abstract concept of a monarchy and how power is concentrated in a single individual.
Not to the specific implementation in today's european monarchies. I think we can all agree that they've been nothing more than figureheads for a very long time.
He never specified any monarchy, modern or otherwise. Just the broad abstract concept of a monarchy. The modern part was your addition.
He can't just go off half-cocked, and start doing whatever the hell he wants.Now, if Trump really had free reign, like in a monarchy, then we would indeed have reason to fear Trump.
He can't just go off half-cocked, and start doing whatever the hell he wants.
Er, yes he did. And what is more he was quite wrong in how he believes that a monarch (conceptual or otherwise) can behave. I merely corrected his mistake.
Whackos are afraid he'll nuke Mexico?
There is only one monarch that I can think of that heads a country with nuclear weapons. So, by association, he is implying that the UK monarch has the power to control nuclear weapons - which she doesn't. Certainly no historical monarch (again conceptual or otherwise) ever had that capability either.
Now, if Trump really had free reign, like in a monarchy
So we are talking about Trump - who I seem to recall was elected quite recently. I would certainly term that a modern event. So he is being compared to a 'modern' monarchy. Monarchs haven't had the sort of power that he is claiming they have for over a hundred years - certainly Queen Victoria had handed over much of whatever 'power' she had to Parliament during the early part of her reign. Chancellors, sheiks and dictators might have had it but, with the exception of perhaps Russia, they haven't had nuclear weapons to play with.
It's not difficult to work out what was meant, but if that was not what he meant to say then perhaps he should have expressed himself differently.
That's not a monarchy it's an oligarchy with a mascot.
You fail to grok that the Republicans in Congress hate Trump's breathing guts even more than the Democrats in Congress do. Trump was a big, fat Fuck You to them and everything they stand for by the American people. He won't be able to get shit remotely controversial done unless career politicians on one side of the aisle or the other pull their heads out of their asses and start working for the people instead of themselves.
Everybody says that. Every election, some people say, "Don't think about the election, think about the Supreme Court!!! That's the real battle!" It's almost equal to the people who vote based upon the health concerns for the candidates. I don't think that's a factor for most people. Most people vote based upon their personal experience, where they are.
I don't care what the "factor" is. The Trump presidency is simply less important than his Supreme Court picks. And he will have a chance to pick more of them than previous presidents, starting with the open seat.
May I be the first to say, as a non-US citizen:
WHAT WERE YOU THINKING???
(The Daily Mash [thedailymash.co.uk] has the first of several worryingly-good takes on this.)
I've never been more ashamed to be American in my life. Hatred, misogyny, bigotry, and xenophobia won out tonight. Bullying and authoritarianism won big. Enjoy your new fascist demagogue dictator, America, you earned it.
Please. I am enormously relieved Trump won, because he delivers the "F-you" the elites so desperately needed. Everything else is dubious and desultory, but tonight and at least for a while I get to enjoy the trepidation of the self-satisfied pricks who have visited havoc on the American people, uninterrupted, for 40 years. I truly hope Trump follows through and visits upon those folk a measure of what they have visited upon America.
As for hatred, misogyny, bigotry, and xenophobia, all I have to say is, "You obviously know nothing about the Clintons." I know a lot about the Clintons. I ran Digital for Bill Clinton at his Foundation for three years book-ending the earthquake in Haiti. I have been physically in the room while he divvied up the spoils with his supposed mortal enemies Rupert Murdoch and Chris Ruddy (of NewsMax, the down-market Fox). I remember how for 3 years Bill Clinton referred to his Director of Press as "that Puerto Rican fella," when in fact he was from the Dominican Republic. I remember Bill Clinton visually fucking the Director of Correspondence, an attractive black lady, while she was waiting to have her picture taken with him. The Clintons don't care about race, sure, in the same way that an exploiter doesn't care about the color of the mark's skin as long as the color of his money is green. But when rubber meets the road, the Clintons are as awful in fact as the most awful anyone imagines about Trump.
Like Farage, Trump is the elite.
Don't confuse "wealth" with "elite". Nor should you mistake "ignorant", "bellicose" or "overbearing" with elite. Trump is simply not part of the club. Despite all his bull-headed arrogance, Trump is just another neighborhood bully, out for numero uno.
> I have been physically in the room while he divvied up the spoils with his supposed mortal enemies Rupert Murdoch and Chris Ruddy (of NewsMax, the down-market Fox
Every time you tell that story it gets wilder and wilder.I'm thinking you've got a case of the brian williams.
The evolving versions of that story:
Chris Ruddy, the CEO of NewsMax, founded that theory and pushed it heavily. He is now Bill Clinton's best pal; I've sat in meetings with the two of them. I've also seen Bill Clinton meeting with Rupert Murdoch. Truly, the Republicans vs. Democrats, Left vs. Right divide in America is all for the rubes. The Clintons, Bushes, Soroses, Murdochs of the world are on the same side.March 30 2015 [soylentnews.org]
I have seen the inside of their operations. I ran their operations. I have seen Chris Ruddy (CEO of Newsmax, and the guy who ran the Vince Foster conspiracy) sitting in meetings with the Clintons, divvying up the spoils. I have seen Rupert Murdoch do the same. I have been in the room when household names you would instantly know have schemed out ways to fleece the public. It's "just business" to them.September 28 2016 [soylentnews.org]
I don't see evolving, I see variations based on context. The basic players are there, the location is there. Your examples span quite a time frame as well.
Hey, if 666 is just blue skying the whole "I was there man" game then I have to say, I love it anyway for it fits the internal view I've had of the Clinton's for some time. When I was young and less worldly I voted for Bill. Twice. Like Obama though, that second one was harder (and DAMN the dems for not finding strong people. They are out there), and later on, when I started to read about the Clinton's, followed her 2008 campaign I grew to not like either at all.
So, if Phoenix666 is telling a tall tale, good on her. If it is possible true, good as well and I'd love to read the book.
My accounts are congruent, and they are true. Here's 3rd party substantiation of Chris Ruddy's association with Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation [judicialwatch.org]. Here is the same for the ties between Rupert Murdoch and the Clintons [wsj.com].
The rubes (us) are led to believe that the Democratic Party and Republican Party are mortal enemies, that the Clintons are permanently at war with the "vast right-wing conspiracy," but that's all a facade. They are all in bed with each other, and the only real factions are those based on ego; there are no ideological camps, only positions of convenience. There is no "Red Team vs. Blue Team," there is only, "1% vs. 99%," to borrow the Occupy language for the sake of convenience. I repeat it every time politics come up on SN because everyone needs to understand that.
The thing that's funny to hear is that some think I'm telling a tall tale, because you know in your heart that what I am saying is real. Trump won because people were voting against the very thing I'm describing, the comprehensive web of corruption that is strangling our country and in which the Clintons are inextricably enmeshed. And what I will say is that the moment after you've pinched yourself in one of those meetings and you know that you're not imagining it, that people really are that corrupt, any "tall tale" impression you might have had before going in vanishes because what you're witnessing is so banal, so crude, so tedious, so unimaginative.
And they're completely unselfconscious about it because it is their daily practice. They don't even think twice about how what they're doing would appall regular Americans. When you walk into a meeting with Rachel Ray, who kisses you on both cheeks and perches behind her tiny antique desk, and you're thinking "Wow that's a weird, random direction I was not expecting my day to take this morning at breakfast when I kissed my wife and baby goodbye," and then her team starts laying out a vision of a scheme where everyone can "wet their beak," it dawns on you that you've stumbled into a parallel universe that's parasitically attached to ours.
When you participate in conference calls with Jesse Dylan, Bob Dylan's son, who's a film maker and documentarian, working out the details of a flattering biopic of the Clintons that all parties can profit from, you realize anew how deep the rabbit hole goes. By the time you're sitting at a gala where Eric Clapton is performing "Cocaine" live 5 feet in front of you as a personal favor to the Clintons, with Bon Jovi as the follow-up act, the vastness of the conspiracy yawns before you.
After that, seeing the list of donors in hard copy, where they live and how much they give, and the list of the Friends of Bill, broken out in tiers of people who merit his personal attention and those who merely get "autopenned" with a piece of fake correspondence, and the piles of boodle sent from everyone from a tea magnate in Indonesia to a purveyor of fine leather goods, sent to curry favor, well, it's just a formality, really. I've seen the hidden vault in the basement of the Clinton Presidential Library in Little Rock, and the cheezy opulence of solid gold statues of racehorses from the king of Saudi Arabia is only exceeded by the hilarity of the protrait of Bill and Hillary that had been done by some notable's nephew, who had rendered them to look like they had Down's (to this day I kick myself that I didn't take a picture of that). I mean, you see Bill Clinton's personal office, and it's not filled with pictures of his wife and kid, the drawing Chelsea did when she was 5, and the kind of stuff that any normal human would have. You see row after row of trophies and prizes with his name, gifted to him by organizations that had reason to kiss his ass.
And that's what they do it for, guys. All that cheesy, glitzy stuff that would make the Gottis blush, all the hollow, fawning awards, the numbers in the bank statements, people bowing and scraping around them clicking madly away on their Blackberries and calling them "Sir!" and "Ma'am!", that's what they shiv the rest of us to get. They start wars and kill tens of thousands of innocent people so that some potentate's nephew will present a gold-framed portrait of them with Down's Syndrome.
It seems very consistent to me.
I am enormously relieved Trump won, because he delivers the "F-you" the elites so desperately needed
Yeah, those lower tax rates on the elites that Trump promised are such a "F-you" to the elites.
Trump is one of the elites. He isn't going to shaft himself. You are delusional if you think he will.
Also, for all your "Flyover country" rhetoric, just where do you think Trump is from? Where does he live? Where does he invest?
for all your "Flyover country" rhetoric, just where do you think Trump is from? Where does he live? Where does he invest?
for all your "Flyover country" rhetoric, just where do you think Trump is from? Where does he live? Where does he invest?
It doesn't matter as much that The Donald is a vile house-stealing cowardly criminal who delegated the dirty work to government agents - that is outweighed by the opportunity to give a giant "F YOU!" to the criminal government establishment along with their incestuous media pals who at least put on a super-convincing show to loudly announce that they did NOT want The Donald as US Pres.
I voted for Trump and I've drawn parallels between him and Hitler multiple times in conversation. If we did elect a Hitler, we'll just have to deal with that as we discover actual supporting evidence. Meanwhile, all the blue islands in the red sea [cracked.com] get to enjoy a nice prolonged view of that giant middle finger erected in their direction.
Bullying and authoritarianism won big.
It wouldn't have won any smaller with Clinton. At least Trump can be impeached, should he cross the line.
She's an authoritarian for sure, but far, far less than him; his authoritarianism is practically off the charts [politicalcompass.org], the most authoritarian president we've ever had by far. And him getting impeached, which is inevitable I believe, but that leaves us with that disgusting fascist theocrat Mike fucking Pence as president, who will be way worse.
So Trump chose a good VP then?
I've long said that Dick Cheney was a great VP. Not for anything that he did or didn't do, but rather for the fact that the one thing that the haters hated more than W was the thought that Cheney would be in charge if W were removed. You seem to be saying that it's the same with Pence...
Well, leave the country, chump. We don't need you. Paris will probably welcome you, unless they've decided that Americans are likely terrorists.
It starts already! [soylentnews.org]
May I be the first to say, as a non-US citizen: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING???
As a US citizen, I am scratching my head wondering the same thing. It didn't go as I had predicted.
Surely you know the answer to that question?
And now surprise...they rarely do....
My Message to the US and its supporters:
You get the government you deserve....
My Message to the US and its supporters:You get the government you deserve....
Yes, I have said this before. In a democracy the people always get what they deserve. Right now it appears that we are about to get anally raped...and we will deserve it. :-(
Well, evil clowns [wikipedia.org] were popular for quite a while. So it's now no surprise that one got elected as president now.
The Hubert H. Humphrey of our time.
That the guy was kind of a Dan Quayle-esque figure with a squeeky clean legal image.
In terms of movie characters you're comparing a Steve Martin character, say, "the jerk" to someone best compared to a batman villain, lets say a cross between Lex Luther and the Joker.
It's amusing watching people who seem to have no understanding about how this could happen even as the entire map of the United States vote is painted red. I think journalists are in many ways no better than your average user circle jerking in social media. JournoList (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JournoList) turned CabaList - these sort of things have left our media completely out of touch with the people. When people surround themselves only with those that view the world through a similar lens as themselves they drift further and further away from reality. Get off facebook, get off twitter, get off reddit or at least the larger subs with manipulative moderation. At the minimum on Reddit change the links to a ceddit instead of reddit and you can see threads without censorship. The free speech alternatives give you a much more clear view of reality. It's not sterile - but neither is reality.
Congratulations America. And I say this as a far left individual, but I'm also a traditional liberal who values liberalism and liberty above all. The democrat party no longer stands for my values. And neither does Trump, but his victory will ensure a reorganization if not dismantling of the democratic party itself. This election should always have been Sanders vs Trump, and I look forward to 2020 or 2024. In the mean time I ironically feel safer with Trump in office. This is Hillary's maturity when it comes to killing leaders of other sovereign nations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fgcd1ghag5Y [youtube.com] And she was pushing for war and conflict against Russia. In Trump's first speech he made international peace and cooperation with anybody willing to cooperate with us a keystone point. Even if I am a liberal this is already a greater America indeed.
I hope your optimism will turn out to be justified — but I fear it won't.
I fear that liberalism is becoming, not merely unfashionable, but downright dangerous. If experience elsewhere is anything to go by, the illiberal will take this as an encouragement; you're likely to see all sorts of ugly views, antagonism, and hatred coming out of the woodwork now, from people who think this victory removes any need for them even to pretend to live and let live.
And for anyone who voted for Trump on the basis of "How bad could it really get?", I fear you may be about to find out :-(
There are reasons to be optimistic about Trump or believe that the negatives are overstated. We've never seen a Republican President that has been so at odds with his party's leadership, particularly on issues such as the TPP. However, Trump believes himself to be a great negotiator and we could see the divisions disappear fast. Watch what happens in the first year closely and decide for yourself whether Trump is the one calling the shots, or his White House staff, perhaps his Vice Prez, or some other elites somewhere.
If Trump shuts down the TPP permanently, he will have justified every vote for him. The TPP is the death knell of middle America. Everyone knows it. Every other incitement, every other reflexive utterance, is purely secondary to that. It's not often that a policy initiative should be so pivotal, but the TPP is such a one. Hillary's second, Kaine, had already hinted before the election that Hillary would reverse her "public" stance on TPP. People in the industrialized Mid-West read that exactly as it was meant, that Hillary would immediately cut their throats upon election. Once again, Hillary was figuring that she could "triangulate" her way out of it. Thank god she has not, and that there remains a chance that she might finally answer for her crimes.
I've read something about another similar deal already being worked on to replace it.
> The TPP is the death knell of middle America. Everyone knows it.
Which specific terms of the TPP make it so noxious to middle america? Not copyrights or patents or corporate sovereignty, specific policies that will be bad for middle america which I presume is either manufacturing or agriculture.
Which specific terms of the TPP make it so noxious to middle america?
The fact that it was created and negotiated in total secret, with anyone thinking about leaking any details being under threat of imprisonment.
The thing was pretty much designed as 3 agreements. The idea was to have 'free trade' then basically do the same thing they did with NAFTA and the US/Mexico/Canada. They consider NAFTA a good deal. Oh and it is for the 1%rs. A few 1%rs showed up and said 'hey you know that is a really bad deal for you right?'. They got laughed out of the room, Ross Perot and Donald Trump were one of the few saying it. They saw exactly what the 'opportunity' meant for them and others. They then went on and took full advantage of it themselves when it passed. They knew.
It is basically the car salesman saying 'hey this nice looking car is a lemon but I will sell it to you for a million dollars' then you turning around and saying 'well how about two million'. They are going to say sure.
TPP is fairly much DOA now. But it was shapping up to be NAFTA 2.0 but with the Philippians and Africa. China saw it for what it was. An end run around the economy they had setup with Nixon. The idea was to also rope in Europe. Like they did with Canada last time. That way it does not look one sided. It would just do the same thing Mexico did to Canada. Canada is not the manufacturing gem it used to be. Everything went to mexico then china.
You can read the full text on wikileaks. It is rather dull and dry. The idea is to remove trade barriers. Those barriers exist to balance out trade partners who do not play nice. But get rid of those and slave labor is not out of the question. Just 'something to be concerned about'.
We've never seen a Republican President that has been so at odds with his party's leadership
We've never seen a Republican President that has been so at odds with his party's leadership
Up to now, maybe; but once the bigwigs accept the result and see the ugly popular mood, they'll realise the danger in being seen to go against it, and they may go along with Trump out of fear and/or self-preservation.
I'm afraid this seems like one more in a long line of self-deceptions I've seen this year:
Many newspapers that traditionally endorse the Republican endorsed Hillary, Gary Johnson, or nobody instead.
Many mainstream Republicans refused to endorse Trump, endorsed Hillary, or kept their mouth shut. Jeb Bush is a notable example.
Trump battled publicly with the Republican Speaker of the House and infuriated the Republican National Committee Chairman. These people are expected to be on the same page.
Several of his positions have been widely rejected by his party's politicians. Notable examples are the TPP, and his stance on Muslims entering the U.S. He also doesn't appear to share many of the traditional Republican social positions, aside from opposition to abortion.
Trump's own running mate, an establishment pick, openly repudiated Trump's comments or positions in some cases.
There is a lot of bad blood between Trump and other Republicans. It won't simply vanish, and I doubt we have seen the last policy clash.
While it may seem to some (or even many) that the election of Donald Trump is some sort of bellwether for some sort of real change, you're about to be disappointed, IMHO.
The Presidential Election:The played out pretty much along the lines of 2012, with Trump replicating the Ritt Momney coalition. But Clinton did not hold together the coalition that Obama had then.
The polls were, for the most part, pretty good, with results that were almost all within the margins of error.
The "swing" states were very close in terms of actual votes [politico.com]. For example, in Wisconsin, out of 2,944,126 votes cast, Trump beat Clinton by 27,390 votes, or 0.9%. In Pennsylvania, out of 5,969,446 votes cast, Trump beat Clinton by 67,951 votes, or 1.1%.
What this shows me is that this was a a typical R vs. D election. Trump turned out the R base, and Clinton did not turn out the D base.
The Congressional ElectionsTo my mind, these are even more evidence that the "drain the swamp" or "throw the crooks out" or "Washington is hopelessly broken/corrupt" rhetoric was nothing but hyperbole.
With the exceptions of Russell Kirk (IL) and possibly Kelly Ayotte (NH), every incumbent senator up for re-election won.
In the House, with a very few exceptions, incumbents won re-election, most quite easily.
So. The folks who inhabit "the swamp" and make up the "corrupt Washington elites" will go back to work for their corporate/special interest masters.
tl;dr: All-in-all, Nothing of consequence has changed. We're a tightly divided electorate and It's back to business as usual in DC. Perhaps one day, the hacks we send to Washington will stop jockeying for filthy lucre and work for the good of those they're supposed to be representing. I won't hold my breath.
We're also going to see those same exact people who just spent the past 8 years talking shit non-stop about the president and openly stating how they want him and the country to fail to suddenly change back to the "Criticizing the president is treason! Why do you hate America so much?" that we saw during Dubya's administration. There will be no discourse, no discussion, only the same bullying, hatefulness, willful ignorance, and closed-mindedness that got us our new president.
Gee, much different than labeling every criticism of Obama as racist?
Pot, Kettle, Black.
There are plenty of legitimate criticisms to make about both Obama and Hillary. When people are making a big deal about non-issues or using something that only seems to be a problem when its because its "the other team" doing it (like say, bitching about Hillary's emails but not giving a fuck about Bush and Cheney deleting 22 million White House emails after a subpoena, or suddenly caring about the one embassy attack during Obama's administration but not the 13 that happened under Bush, or suddenly caring about "National Security" and "honesty but not giving a fuck when Bush's administration outed a CIA active agent, endangering her life and ending her career, and then committed perjury during the investigation, etc) then its clear that the hatred is already pre-determined due to bias and the person is just desperately looking for anything, literally anything, to justify that biased hatred.
Its pretty easy to tell bias from legitimate criticisms. Believe it or not, the people being called out as racists were, in fact, racists. Watch as they remain silent when Trump does literally the same exact things that Obama and Hillary got shit for without a fucking peep from the people who made the most racket when Obama/Hillary did it. That is called "hypocrisy" and "obvious bias", and whats the only difference? Skin color and genitals.
That is called "hypocrisy" and "obvious bias"
Nope, that's called what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
With that incredibly broad brush you're painting with, you forget that there were several who were critical of both Bush and Clinton (begins with an "l" but it's not the left).
And I'll remind you the same people who wanted Bush tried as a war criminal turned a blind eye towards everything Obama and Clinton were doing as well.
But hey, keeping telling yourself it was all racism, and that only you can look into a man's heart and see where their motivations lie.
And this is exactly why liberals lost and are going to become the hated minority they always claim to be. Wishing away your problems will not remove them. Wishing away the people you despise and taking away their right one by one won't make them powerless. I have said here on SN a long time back that the problem of western civilization is their quest to be efficient. Who cares about educating racists when you can just silence them? Why care about men's issues when you can just ignore them? Liberals have slowly and systematically involved themselves into a social engineering project where they demonized college men, caused ever increasing college dropout rate, didn't control the education loan crisis while subsidizing the female college students. And what happened? The non-college going white male population which has been voting democrats switched sides. And yet Trump did better among hispanics and didn't lose any women votes. Why? I have already read several articles from The Economist, The Guardian and Vox calling votes as idiots. Could it be that they, in fact, don't like to be called idiots? Could it be liberals squandered all chances of an open dialogue and power sharing until a long term solution could be found? Could it be that liberals are not that liberals and worked to preserve the status quo, becoming the the very definition of conservatism? Could it be that there might a cause behind someone being a racist? If liberals can't get underneath the skin of their haters when they actually have the power, why complain on losing it?
Is that racism or team tribalism? There probably is racism, but certainly not all of it is.
That is called "hypocrisy" and "obvious bias", and whats the only difference? Skin color and genitals.
But they're also on different teams.
There are some of us who did speak up about those issues, then. We were called 'traitors' and 'unpatriotic.' Me, I decried the corruption and criminality then, when Karl Rove and Scooter Libby destroyed emails rather than comply with federal records-retention acts.
Of course you and others like you will gloss over all that endlessly in order to fit everything into your simplistic narratives.
So if you want to escape the petard that you are hoisting others upon, then do the moral thing and call out everything that runs afoul of that code, no matter which team you identify with. I bet you can't do it, given the cavelier tone you've adopted thus far.
There are some of us who did speak up about those issues, then. We were called 'traitors' and 'unpatriotic.'
Are you ready for another 4 years of that? Because I'm sure as hell not. America's fall to fascism is complete. And there's still this overwhelming idea that being against Drumpf makes one pro-Clinton. I assure, thats not the case. The world isn't black and white, there is no "either for us, or against us", but unfortunately we're about to live through another 4 years of that same bullshit that we suffered through during Dubya's administration yet again. Its a sad day for America.
I agree. Being anti-Trump does not equal being pro-Clinton. I also agree that the world isn't black and white, and that there is a lot more nuance out there than the simplistic narratives pushed by the media. For example, I voted for Trump not because I am pro-Trump, but because I am vehemently anti-Clinton.
I fear that liberalism is becoming, not merely unfashionable, but downright dangerous.Because it has been hijacked by demagogues who want to punish any that do not agree with them. That is the singular reason for the backlash. Someone still has not explained sufficiently to me how 'safe spaces' are not segregation and racist/bigoted. Renaming bad things and then pinning the old names on your opposition does not make you a good person.
It's not like these people who put Trump into office are hiding in secret underground caverns. Look at conservative twitters, look at voat.co, 4chan, whatever. It should be abundantly clear by now that you cannot trust the mainstream media. Their polls were about as accurate as their portrayal of Trump supporters. It's the same story more or less everywhere. The real thing that Trump successfully tapped into was the same thing that probably would have given Bernie the victory if he won. People are sick of corruption and career politicians enabling such corruption in DC. The housing market crash destroyed the lower and middle classes. The elites who caused it ended up better off than ever before and suffered not a single repercussion. We even gave them massive loans of taxpayer money to help them get back on their feet. Hillary was going to be more of this type of complete nonsense.
The entire nation is changing sharply populist and anti-establishment. If not for her control of the media and the DNC, this election would have been representative of that and we'd have had a battle of ideology between Sanders and Trump. Instead we had a battle of somebody representative of an establishment that's time is up being propped up only by the media and their demonizations. This is really like old war propaganda. People don't want to kill other people so in times of war the media would be used to vilify the opposition and make them seem inhuman. Go spend some time among them. You might fund a very different surface level but look under the surface and we all have so much more in common than these divisive politics would lead you to believe. Maybe this little SNL Skit, Black Jeopardy, was a lot deeper than it might seem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ly0X2XmEf1s [youtube.com]
Yes! This was well done because 1) It was really funny. 2) Helps illustrate that there is more that connects us than separates us -- or at least that EVERYONE should distrust the man, which is an important place to start.
but his victory will ensure a reorganization if not dismantling of the democratic party itself
Or they'll rationalize that without that madwoman stealing the nomination from Bernie, we'd probably be talking about President Bernie right now. Or would we?
How you feel about Bernie?
One analogy of Clinton with SF is she's kinda like "The Mule" and once she's gone the D party can exorcise the organized crime element and carry on. Until the next crime family tries to take it over, anyway.
May God forgive Wasserman and Brazile and all others for tilting the primary towards HRC because I WON'T forgive them!
And don't tell me the third party candidates screwed HRC, no sir, she was a weak candidate who was forced upon us. Those who made the decision will now have ample time to regret it.
Sorry to post these comments again (I did in the previous story) but I'm PISSED OFF badly, the fucking DNC brought this on themselves and God forgive them, on all of us.
But it is a sign of their disconnect from everyday people that they thought HRC was going to waltz to the White House because they said so...
I'm having a beer (many!) and almost crying at such stupidity, not on the voters, but in the insensible party machine; the idiots from Hollywood and Wall Street and Washington DC and every place who thougt it was time to elect a woman.
You wanted a woman president? How about senator Warren?
I'M PISSED AT THE DNC AND I WON'T FORGIVE THEM! NOT EVEN AFTER I'M DEAD!
I agree with you that Hillary was a weak candidate chosen in advance by the Democratic Party leadership. TONS of baggage, no likability (grating, sneaky, obviously calculating--the obvious part is the worst part), and a candidate that was REJECTED by the people the LAST time she ran (and Obama won the nomination).
The only reason I can think of that she was picked is because she had entrenched herself so thoroughly in the Democratic party machine (through her husband, in great part). Her ego was just too boundless to take NO for an answer.
Agree. I'm still crying about the RNC's mistake in going with Hillary instead of Bernie. Oh how sweet it would've been to see President Bernie...
There was that moment when the songbird landed on Bernie's podium. I thought, wouldn't that be a positive sign? It was deep in the primaries and Hillary had already slimed her way to the lead, so a triumph for Bernie at that time would have been miraculous. Alas it was not to be.
No, jelizondo, not Warren. Had she run in the primary, I would have bled for her. I truly would have. She was the only one in Washington who was spanking the Wall Street bankers. But then she kissed up with Hillary, and I knew her beliefs were merely a flag of convenience. In a way, I'm grateful that events have exposed Warren for the worthless Establishment shill she is.
The immediate future is uncertain. Trump is a monkey wrench to the system. But if Hillary had won, we'd know exactly what we would have gotten: utter enslavement, the end of the Rule of Law.
Now we have a mostly certainty that Trump will continue the status quo, that he will perpetuate the spoils system that has always obtained. But he might get a few of the people who need to get got, and that's vastly more than we would have gotten from Hillary, the utterly corrupt, the consummately criminal.
I agree with you. Many pundits wrote about the disaster that awaited the Republican Party after the election, now we can clearly see that the DNC is going to have to seriously change its ways.
However, I disagree on your assessment of Warren. The Consumer Financial Protection Board [consumerfinance.gov] is still there and kicking ass. I believe that Warren, like Sanders, had to pledge support to the candidate of the party, it’s a loyalty to the party thing.
Me and mine fought hard against the DLC for 20 years in the DNC. In the end, in this election cycle, they sucked everyone in the party into their corroded embrace. That's why I left.
Do you really think that Warren and Sanders can recall the base to the banner, now that they threw in their lot with a criminal like Hillary? Or is a real third party in the offing?
I'm going to respond to this one.
My answer is yes, with conditions. I was following Sanders before he ever threw his hat in the ring. I connected with his ideals, his policy statements and even the style of delivery. He was a politician, but he knew how to wield a verbal bat when needed. During the primary I listened to his speech at Liberty College and was carried away with the ability he had to project his viewpoints in the bastion of conservative birthing without offending the audience. It was masterful and for me, I felt it would help him climb over the woman who did not have the guts to even try.
Warren came to my attention on of things, the Daily Show when she was talking about her new agency she was trying to birth. After that I also followed and found a consistent voice that would shake the marbled columns of Wall Street while saying to folks like me (middle class, middle age IT developer), I will protect you. When she tongue lashed the CEO of Wells Fargo, done after her pledged Fealty to Her Majesty, I had thoughts that what was spoken in the moment was not long term.
What do they need to do to help clean house in the DNC and move the Democratic Party closer to their ideals? To start, help remove any vestiges of Obama and the Clinton's from the leadership of the party. The DNC and party cannot change as long as those two political machines exist. Next, hold Trump to the fire, but don;'t burn him. I'm along your lines, kind of a "I still sense goodness in him Yoda" moment that makes me think Trump will be upsetting the GOP for the next four years. Hard to say, but if they try to pull him down instead of working with his character (let's make a deal) then they'll do more harm then good.
I would love to see them more bully pulpit on the true slime that runs through Wall Street, but also praise any small pocket of good they also find. It should not just be one call for the Head of a CEO, it needs to be a full press till the DoJ can explain how people at the top can commit a crime and not even get arrested.
Bernie endorsing Clinton hurt me a lot. I lost some faith, but I tried to consider that he felt strongly about having a Democrat at the top, but this time missed the uglier picture that she would have sold the people he cared about down the river. He could get it back if he makes his voice heard again. The same with Warren. If they remain "friends", if they speak in support for her if she ever gets arrested, if they just remain quiet then no, they lost me.
That should make it obvious is that the system doesn't 'hate' women, it actually doesn't really gives two shit about gender. It is all about power and it is all about money and anybody who doesn't think this is the exact kind of fool politicians need as a voter.
How about Jill Stein? Why is a woman who's pretty cool even in the eyes of a Trump voter, and isn't a reprehensible criminal, kicked into a 3rd party?
She would make a hell of a democrat nominee. And she's kicked into another party why exactly?
Something interesting to think about with Stein is whats her unacceptability percentage, is it even as high as 1%? I'm too lazy to look it up, but I know Trump and Hillary both scored about 50% unacceptable. I would prefer Trump over Stein but I would be ... tolerant of Stein. She's respectable. If it was neocuck Jeb vs Stein, honestly I donno I might have voted for Stein just because she's less F-ed up.
Is Stein an example of a real democrat who's not being allowed to participate as a democrat, or is she an unusual one time outlier like the God Emperor and Hillary?
When a perfectly good seed can't grow in your dirt but does OK elsewhere, you gotta look at whats wrong with your dirt, not complain about theres no good seeds or I got a bad seed last time or other farmers suck or whatever. The problem with the democrats isn't that a handful of them are doing it wrong, its the very soil of the party is corrupt and filthy and poisoned. The problem is the people who should be leading the "D" are instead kicked out and doing green party foolishness. You're not gonna fix this by axing two apparatchiks and making some speeches and trying it again with a different globalist crime family. The D party requires something like "burn it with fire" "call in an exorcism" "treat the whole thing as a superfund cleanup site" "nuke it from orbit just to be sure" level of cleanup required to fix it. Gonna have to go way beyond what you're asking, to actually fix the D party.
Which as a Trump supporter I don't think they're gonna do it so unlike you I'm happy with it.
It would be nice for the D party to try putting someone up who's not a POS. They should try it some time. Been awhile. Till then, the revitalized R party can go on winning.
That is a really good question, VLM. The realpolitik answer is that Hillary so dominated local politics that there was no chance for someone like Jill Stein to get a fair hearing.
This election has been a travesty at least since Sanders dropped out and even started to support Hillary, and it turned into an experiment of how high mass-manipulation can rise in the U.S. while still maintaining the semblance of democracy. But look at the bright side:
1. Trump is almost universally hated by both the media and Congress. He'd better watch himself for the next four years, or he goes the way of Nixon. Congress will keep him in check, and Trump will keep Congress in check--actually this is the intended purpose of the Constitution. With Hillary we would have entered the age of rampant cronyism.
2. As much as I don't like the man, I have to give it to him that he is competent. Just remember back a year or so ago--Trump was the joke of the primaries, and very few believed that he would secure the nomination, let alone beat Hillary. Then he turned it all around, against all odds, and how. Hate Trump all you want, but it's hard to deny that he's probably the most competent politician America has seen in decades. He achieves his goals. He is also the one who's the least likely to be controlled by the American political elite.
3. Since most of this political elite and the media wanted Hillary to win, and Trump enjoyed the support of the little, albeit less educated people, I conclude with some satisfaction that democracy still works somehow after all. This is the downside of democracy: you can be outvoted by a lot of morons, but it's still better than any other form of government.
4. Trump's presidency will most likely be one term only, which may be better for everyone than two terms of Hillary.
5. Finally, with Trump at the helm, we are going to see some interesting, perhaps even entertaining times. If we survive it, of course. So just relax, get yourself some popcorn, sit back, and enjoy the show!
Bright side? When Drumpf inevitably gets impeached (that is, if he doesn't blow up the world via nuclear mutually assured destruction first), we get stuck with President Mike Pence, who is FAR, FAR WORSE and FAR more extreme than Drumpf could ever be.
(that is, if he doesn't blow up the world via nuclear mutually assured destruction first)
Don't worry, Mexico doesn't have enough nukes for that, and even if they did, Trump would have the support of his good friend Putin.
Why would he nuke Mexico? And the whole point of mutually-assured destruction is that everyone has nukes. We launch a nuke, our target and all their allies nuke us, and then all of our allies nuke all of them, and so on. It doesn't matter where the first nuke goes, all the allied countries of the target have to retaliate. Thats how the system works to keep anyone from using a nuke, because everyone dies if somebody decides to be that stupid.
Thats how the system works to keep anyone from using a nuke, because everyone dies if somebody decides to be that stupid.
The operative assumption of course is that there is no one that stupid. Perhaps you hadn't heard but during a national security briefing Trump asked no less than three times why he couldn't just use nukes. He has also suggested that we bow out of our security agreements with South Korea and Japan and they should just defend themselves from North Korea with nukes instead. Given his extreme stupidity, our future is looking much more bleak. Say a prayer tonight; it may be about the only thing standing between us and Armageddon.
Seriously? Did we hear the responses to his 3 questions? Do you think only asking once would be too many? Is fully understanding the Security Advisors take on the "End of Days" option really the most horrible thing or is it the only responsible thing?
Here's a hypothetical:
Q: What about Nukes?
A: Well, we can't really use them.
Q: Okay, why not?
A: Well, because of the retaliation.
Q: Okay, so when would they be a valid option?
3 times. Of course it's not hard to have the next question be, "They why are we spending Billions on these things?" or something similar.
that is, if he doesn't blow up the world via nuclear mutually assured destruction first
You're thinking of the candidate that was actively picking a fight with the only other serious nuclear power in the world, not Trump.
same hillary voter that was spewing bs earlier. hillary is the hawk out of the two. why you dumbasses keep trying to paint trump as the nut with his hand on the button is beyond me. nobody believes you, dumbass.
hillary is the hawk out of the two.
Yes, she is. But Trump's hardly a dove.
why you dumbasses keep trying to paint trump as the nut with his hand on the button is beyond me.
Because in a couple of months he WILL BE the nut with his hand on the button.
The only possible reason I could come up with for voting for the Drumpfster was the inevitability of the Republicans having to impeach their own president. The Dress would probably not even be blue, and come with the name "Epstein" on it. But right, Pence: he, like most evangelicals, will burn in hell for an eternity for having the gall to thing that they can interpret the will of God. God does not like it when you do that, even if you are a republican, or perhaps, especially when you are a Republican who has hitched his ass to a know fornicator and liar and person with very small hands. I Prey for Pence's soul. Seriously.
Trump is almost universally hated by both the media and Congress. He'd better watch himself for the next four years, or he goes the way of Nixon. Congress will keep him in check, and Trump will keep Congress in check
1. Trump is the dealmaker (see The Art of the Deal).2. Trump allegedly has a short attention span (ask the guy who actually wrote The Art of the Deal).
If #1 and #2 are true, Republicans in Congress and the party establishment may have a much easier time with Trump than they previously feared.
Certainly, Trump seemed to make up stances on some issues on the spot. Get enough mainstream Republicans whispering in his ear, and he could go with the flow. Or just delegate the work to Mike Pence.
2. Trump allegedly has a short attention span (ask the guy who actually wrote The Art of the Deal).
Oh please. Bill Clinton, and Hillary Clinton, have infinitesimally short attention spans. I ran digital for Bill Clinton for 2.5 years. Every day is was another brainstorm from him. They have no idea what it takes to run things, or to do things. They are without a clue. They have never conceived of, planned for, or executed on anything in their lives. They deserve to rest on the dustheap of history.
A historically, bigly, short attention span.
Zelig, is that you?
His attention was held by the Presidential race for nearly 2 years...
He achieves his goals.
Looking at his goals, that's the scary part.
The media was already all-in against Trump. Even Fox News. They blew all their reputation and ammunition trying to stop him. They failed. It says that the more they oppose him, the stronger they make him. Watch. They will cozy up to him, and issue endless mea culpas. Anything else spells total irrelevance for them.
That was by design. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/796222841612042240 [twitter.com]
Basically the press created this monster. As commanded to do by their buddies at the DNC. Then are collectively flipping their shit when they got what they wanted. They were perfectly cool with the Clintons usurping control of the DNC. Now they have a big problem.
These are not good people. Everything they do is a scheme to either make money or peddle influence or fuck someone (literally and figuratively).
People are way too stupid for it. We're seeing a wonderful wave of populism all over the globe currently. I guess the old adage that there is no such thing as negative publicity is true.
What is needed is an _enlightened_ dictator.
Ugh, take that dark enlightment shit somewhere else.
The media has been for months on end engaging in 24/7 demonization of Trump and propping up of Hillary in every conceivable way. And yet we look at the results and Hillary was beaten. If we look at her performance relative the "polls", she was absolutely demolished. The people, whether you disagree or agree with their vote, were certainly voting on issues and logic beyond just listening to what the media told them. Even conservative media such as FoxNews had turned against Trump. I think this election is a huge victory for the independence of thought of the masses even if at times it might not feel that way.
Another issue is that Obama, when he was running for office, seemed like a godsend. Intelligent, unbelievably charismatic, an ostensible outside visible by something as apparent as the color of his skin. Yet he nothing like we thought. He was just another establishment corporatist. If we didn't live in a democracy, this man who seemed like everything we could have ever asked for in a benevolent dictator would be choosing his successor and we'd end up with a Hillary-like. Democracy may be slow, but so long as votes are counted fairly and without coercion it means you're never stuck with any given failure for all that long.
No, you're just stuck with a long, long series of failures. But the US doesn't have a democracy anyway, since our political system is designed to be a two-party system; there's no democracy in voting for the 'lesser evil' all the time.
Maine passed their Ranked Choice Voting Initiative [ballotpedia.org], which is the beginning of the end for our two-party system, as long as we can make sure the rest of the states adopt it as well.
I hadn't even heard that was on the ballot -- it's a very good sign that it passed, in terms of voters being aware of the problems with our current system, and being willing to try something different.
However, I need to point out several issues with that.
For a thorough, text-heavy criticism of IRV relative to range voting, see here [rangevoting.org]
For a more graphical set of demonstrations (about IRV and many other systems, you'll need to understand Yee diagrams. Once you understand them, they're one of the clearest ways to see certain failures of voting systems. With carefully selected inputs, they can make almost all voting systems look bad (because most voting systems do have serious faults), but IRV is really bad. I'll offer a brief explanation here, but there's also one in the first link below, so go with whichever is easier for you to follow.A Yee diagram depicts results of a family of simulated election results, holding the candidates constant and letting the voting population vary. It is based on a political model with 2 arbitrary axes, simply because 2 dimensions fit well on a computer screen. There are an arbitrary number of candidates, positioned anywhere in both axes. The voting population is modeled as a single normal distribution, centered about a variable point in each axis (which are varied to create the diagram). So it does not model anything like a distinct urban population, centered at one point, and rural population, centered at another point.
The output, that is the Yee diagram itself, is a simple, square image containing only two sets of features:
With that in mind, look at these pages:
On Monday, I got an email from Bill de Blasio, Mayor of New York, demonizing Trump. He has always been a Clinton surrogate in NYC. I had already resolved to vote for Trump, but even if I hadn't I'm pretty sure that email from Bill would have pushed me over the top. There's something about condescending fucks, pretending to be your betters and telling you what to do, that moves a person to do the exact opposite.
This bullshit rhetoric started during this election cycle. There is no such thing as an enlightened dictator, and you forget the next step where someone worse takes over and you have no recourse. I often call people idiot or stupid as a general insult, but for you I actually mean it. You are an idiot of colossal proportions.
People, Trump himself probably never expected to get this far. He's said as much, hasn't he, that if he wins he's basically going to "delegate" all the work to actual politicians?
Remember the last time we had a situation like that? That's right, Cheney and Dubya. Just like Dubya, Trump is gonna spend his term in office sitting around masturbating to his own reflection in the mirror and trying to figure out which color crayon tastes best.
Instead, we have as the Cheney analogue...Michael Pence. A young-earth creationist who thinks the Bible supersedes the Constitution, caused an HIV plague in his state that required federal intervention, and tried to pass a bill that would require mothers who miscarry to hold a fucking funeral for the dead fetus. The guy thinks The Handmaiden's Tale is a sex manual.
On top of this, we have a GOP Senate majority, AND a very weak Supreme Court. This could lead to the placement of anywhere from one to three "justices" who make Antonin Scalia look like Mahatma Gandhi. Know what happens in that case? Kiss marriage equality goodbye. Title IX? Into the circular file. Roe vs. Wade will almost certainly be overturned. We may even lose the Civil Rights Act, if it comes to that. Don't think it can't happen.
Then there's the cultural and memetic fallout of this ugly little kink in the hose of history. This victory has not only legitimized but mainstreamed the worst the nation has to offer. Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, the KKK, the Dominionists (read: "Christian Taliban"), you name it. Expect to see a massive uptick in police brutality and killings, riots, hate crimes, poverty, pollution, and Cthulhu alone knows what else.
This was our Reichstag fire. Kristallnacht is coming. We had the Beer Hall Putsch when Trump won the nomination.
And, you know, I can only blame the DNC for this. Every single criticism of the Democrats for having lost their soul in the 70s, for ignoring white poverty, for becoming a cloistered inbred human centipede of graft and corruption, all of it. Sanders was robbed. He would have kicked the unholy shit out of Trump tonight. Instead, the establishment elite put their interests above those of We the People, and paid for it in the most fitting way possible.
I just wish it wouldn't suck so fucking much for us little people :(
> Sanders was robbed.
Sanders lost the primary by nearly 4 million votes. Nothing the DNC did could have manipulated that many voters into voting for her over sanders. In 2008 Obama's margin in the primaries was less than a million.
I don't think you did any research on that.
Thanks for making me laugh this morning, I needed it.OK, it was that despairing kind of "Oh my God it's true" laughter, but laughter nonetheless.
A couple of months ago when it seemed Hillary had an unbeatable lead, Michael Moore expected Trump to win.
Yes, I blame the Democrats. How many times did we hear Hillary promise to create more jobs? Not even close to often enough. What did the Democrats do when they were swept to power in the aftermath of the housing bubble and market crash that happened on the Republican's watch? Did they fix Wall Street? No. Make banks refinance home loans at fair values and rates? No. The CFPB doesn't go far enough, not by a long shot. Leave Afghanistan? No, and wasn't that supposed to be the next step after taking out Bin Laden? Mission accomplished, let's go home? What about Iraq, when can we pull out of there? How about student loans, what did Democrats do about that? It is so exasperating to see the Democrats blow an easy victory. People are hurting, and they won't do things that really help. Jobs, you idiots, jobs! Really, Obama was lucky to win a 2nd term. If the Romney hadn't been thoroughly establishment, Obama might well have lost.
What we got was Obamacare. It wasn't enough. Martin Shkreli and Heather Bresch showed everyone just how far Obamacare falls short. Health care is still insanely expensive.
Now what do we do? Watch Trump set a record for fastest impeachment ever? Don't hold your breath. I had a sense that all the apocalyptic talk from the left was overly hysterical and plain wrong. More than a few suggested Trump wasn't a serious candidate, he was only running as a publicity stunt and couldn't possibly win the nomination, let alone the presidency, and was actually trying to sabotage his own campaign so he could go back to his gig. I thought about that one and concluded they were wrong, Trump would go the distance if he got the votes. And now that he's President Elect, no way in hell is he going to resign so he can go back to being a carefree billionaire, turn things over to Pence before he even takes the oath.
> [...] Michael Moore expected Trump to win.
I came to post the link to his essay. He predicted a "Rust Belt Brexit."
Now what do we do? Watch Trump set a record for fastest impeachment ever?
No, and good, so. The RNC and DNC will be running scared from him. The DNC will fund-raise from the rubes and Establishment for it. The RNC will be hampered from doing that, though they will try.
If Trump somehow cobbles together a guiding ideology, then we might see lasting change of some kind in the system. But I bet we won't. He's not a system-builder. He's an egoist.
The worst thing the DNC and RNC could do at this point would be to openly oppose him. He'd translate his populist win into a jihad against the Establishment. His "drain the swamp" campaign rhetoric notwithstanding, he has no intention of disrupting business as usual.
Azuma, that is such an apt summation of yesterday. I wish to god that the DNC had people with your insight informing their strategy. If they had they would never have gone along with Hillary.
We know now that there is no place in the Democratic Party for insight such as yours. And, no, the Green Party and the Libertarians are not alternatives. I wish there was a rebirth of the Progressive Party/Bull Moose Party to carry the banner of common sense, populist policy in America.
It may happen but not for another half decade at least. This country is basically a drug addict who just hit rock bottom.
What really scares me is that I've seen this pattern play out over and over and over again throughout history, and it never ends well for the poor and minorities. History textbooks only talk about the major players in events like this; they never tell the truth, that "history" in reality is largely a record of hideous human suffering caused by ego, greed, and stupidity.
We had an article on this site not too long ago analyzing how the Demcoratic party lost its soul. This outcome is *precisely* what the party deserves, and under better circumstances I would be cheering. But what actually happened here is that the fascists, Dominionists, and corporatists took advantage -- AGAIN! -- of the sufferin, angry poor to seize power. All those Trump voters are going to be in for several nasty shocks in a row.
Personally, I am not sure I will survive much longer. I'm taking the early steps of fleeing this country, but no one says there will be a job waiting for me wherever I go. And the entire world's major centers of civilization are potentially in danger. I am considering "teach English in Japan" for obvious reasons, but...if China gets pissy, all that will end up doing for me is getting me vaporized by a nuclear bomb. Ditto going to South Korea.
Personally, I am not sure I will survive much longer. I'm taking the early steps of fleeing this country, but no one says there will be a job waiting for me wherever I go. And the entire world's major centers of civilization are potentially in danger. I am considering "teach English in Japan" for obvious reasons, but...if China gets pissy, all that will end up doing for me is getting me vaporized by a nuclear bomb. Ditto going to South Korea.
I don't know that any of us can say any different. Good luck in the effort. We have friends who have been hiding out in Japan since W. Bush's second term. You too could do as well.
Unfortunately, there is no way Trump will get the party unity to make this happen. The muslims are here to stay, they breed quickly, they vote as a block, and ultimately they will be the ones dishing out Kristallnacht. We have perhaps 50 to 100 years left.
Oh fuck the fuck off, you stupid bastard. You're not much different from the people you're villifying.
Looks like pot is now legal for medical use in a majority of US states, and for recreational in several.
Until President Trump reinstates enforcement of federal prohibition in states that have decriminalized pot.
nope, cannabis wins!
Sounds like he's for medical. He also sounds uninterested in dealing with it at a federal level. http://www.businessinsider.com/where-donald-trump-stands-on-weed-legalization-2016-11 [businessinsider.com]
Fifty years from now our kids will point to the events of 2016 and say to one another (in Chinese) "...and that's why we don't have democracy any more."
Nope, that's why in 50 years our descendents will turn to each other and say, "That's why we are free. Because we refused the pay-off of the Chinese."
I am not surprised at this result, and to be hones, I blame the democrats for the results.
I have long said that this election will be like a game of rock-paper-scissors:1. Bernie beats Trump.2. Hillary beats Bernie.3. Trump beats Hillary.
We never got to see the first one (and it was also the least safe bet), but 2 was demonstrated when the Democrats chose Hillary, and 3 at the election.
The only way we could have achieved different results is if the Democrats had realized this and chosen Bernie. Then it would have been up to the Republicans to decide whether to bet on Trump (and lose, if I'm right about 1), or bring in a different candidate, calling off the game of rock-paper-scissors.
OK, let's see who is what.
Hillary is known for covering up things, so paper fits perfectly. Also, paper is the medium for traditional mail, of which email is a modern form.
So if Hillary is paper, and Trump beats Hillary, he must be scissors. Which somehow fits, as scissors can be used to cut things in two, that is, to divide things. And who would be a more dividing personality than Trump? Also, scissors can be used to injure people, and Trump certainly did verbally injure people.
That leaves rock for Bernie.
That's fitting, because his beliefs haven't changed in the course of his career.
And Rock fits Bernie, because he's constant. If he were to have delivered speeches to Wall Streeters, he would have said exactly the same things to them that he said to working class people on Main Street.
Good old solid rock, I'd build a house on that!
Just wondering … why is it that Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton are referred to by their first name, but Donald Trump by his last name?
OK, for Hillary Clinton, it may be because just "Clinton" might refer to Bill Clinton instead. But Sanders?
And why not "Donald" for Trump? "Donald beats Hillary" or "Trump beats Clinton" would both make sense, but "Trump beats Hillary" is illogical.
And yes, I know it's not just you who does that; but it still remains illogical.
That's how he has branded himself. TRUMP tower rather than DONALD tower.
Saying Hillary rather than Clinton allows you to easily distinguish from Bill Clinton.
With Bernie Sanders you have the #FeelTheBern branding.
Donald Trump's victory is a much-needed wake up call to the elites of the USA and the wider world. Hillary Clinton remembered the affluent east and west coasts and forgot those in-between. Trump did not persuade voters; voters persuaded Trump to represent them. The orchestrated anti-Trump narrative in the media did not achieve the desired effect of promoting Clinton, who is popularly viewed as untrustworthy and corrupt.
The 'status quo' candidate representing the interests of high finance and corporations lost and the change candidate emerged victorious. The House, Senate and Presidency are all in Republican hands, thanks to the votes of people inhabiting cities and towns of the USA which have been in decline for decades due to a lethal combination of unhindered free trade, advancing technology, and outsourcing of labour. Millions of desperate people were left to drown by a disdainful elite, and would grasp any life raft offered; it was Trump who made that offer. Whether he'll follow through and actually help those left behind, only time will tell.
The U.S. election result is further evidence that the majority of the mass media lives in a self-perpetuated bubble, insulted from the harsh and grim realities ordinary people face every day. Huge frustration and discontentment in modern politics manifested in the UK with the Brexit vote to leave the European Union, and it is manifest in this election. In Bernie Sanders the Democratic Party had a more palatable populist to offer, but preferred to nominate their Establishment candidate instead. So they did...and so she lost.
The uberleft can have their shitfits all they want but I think Trump will end up going down as one of the great presidents, and certainly will be a billion times better than Hillary "we came, we saw, he died" Clinton for one simple reason nobody has even mentioned so far....his ego.
Just look at Trump's history, he has always wanted his name in giant letters with everyone telling him how great he is...think he is gonna shit all over that for a little personal gain? Not a chance in hell, he is gonna want those history books all talking about how great a president he was so he is gonna bust his ass to make that come true and anybody who watched his victory speech could see that plain as day. He didn't gloat and get in a couple more digs at Hillary, he was totally gracious. He didn't tell the leaders of other countries to piss off or use any "axis of evil" style rhetoric, he instead extended an olive branch and offered to negotiate fairly with those that do the same. Hell he even talked about putting unemployed Americans to work rebuilding our failing infrastructure which sounds a hell of a lot like the WPA under FDR!
So I don't think he'll be a bad president, just the opposite he'll probably be one of the most beloved by both the American people and the world before the end of his first term, his ego simply will not allow anything less.
...I think Trump will end up going down as one of the great presidents...
He will either be one of the greatest, or one of the worst, there won't be any quiet middle ground with this one.
I wish you were kidding, he will be the dumbest president. Not great, not the worst, just dumb. Hoo-ray for our new clown president (and no I'm not mad, either of the front runners would be terrible).
I think he's not as smart as he THINKS he is, but is smarter than he showed during the debates: he seems ADD or something, and can't seem to put his thoughts into clear order (starting a sentence and then not finishing it in order to get out the next thought.)
I can't speak well without something to keep me on track, but. I am far from stupid.
Hopefully once he gets settled, he WILL be good. Here's hoping (and yes, I think he'll do a better job than Hillary would have).
I look at it this way....after reading the Wikileaks emails? He certainly couldn't be any worse than the corrupt backroom dealing Shillary. If it would have been Bernie VS Trump the outcome would have probably been different but after reading Wikileaks (and seeing sick fucks on the left like Bill Maher say "I don't care what was on her basement server, I don't care if they found Jon Beney Ramsey in her basement all that matters is we must vote for Hillary!") and seeing how badly the media and repub establishment would have rolled over for Shillary? We are MUCH better off with a Trump presidency, at least he has talked of repealing NAFTA and promises he'll kill TPP once and for all.
You are correct, sir!
Here's hoping that another Bernie steps up next election, gets elected and is able to fix America. Or that Trump will.
But yes, killing TPP, etc, is why Canada got rid of IT'S Hillary/Obama... a douche named Harper. Just like with Harper, Trump partially got elected to send a fucking message to the elite douches who have lost their humanity and morals.
Corporations need to be takedown a bit: they are beasts that constantly need to feed, but can never be full.... they just take and take. One more dollar. One more. Just ONE more! And another. Juuuust ONE MORE!!!!
They need to be made to see that people DO matter.
Black lives matter is just a red herring. All lives matter.
You just saved me a few minutes writing it all down for me.
I will only add that what you see as a self-deluded & out-of-touch media has been shown in the emails leaks to be either a case of bought-and-paid-for media, or the result of selection-bias where the Democrats would pick up the phone and have non-Democrat news people fired over unfaltering coverage. And what better proof there is for the selection-bias other then the exit polls? How could so many people get it so wrong? Easy. Anyone who polled differently was long since removed from the system.
Even now, I just saw a CNN bobblehead going state-by-state over the current results, and calling a 3% Democrat win a "landslide victory" and the following 3% Republican win a "narrow defeat". And it's been like this for almost two years now.
That's what the modern media do. They try to manufacture reality. It's fortunate for us that reality struck back.
Did you see when they went to, I think, New Hampshire to see Hillary's lead there and as they were speaking it flipped to Trump winning?
They backed out of N.H. REAL quick! What a larf! :)
Yep, Robotron, you are reading the results correctly. Few others, elsewhere, are. They can't even conceive that such a "buffoon" could beat Hillary.
But what do the avatars of the status quo do when their collusion is thrown back in their collective faces? Will they experience a moment of clarity, realize the error of their ways, and get right with the world?
I don't think so.
At the same time, I don't think Trump has an articulated plan to do something else. The closest I have seen to a modern platform for a different future was that offered by Iceland's Pirate Party a couple weeks ago, but there's nothing like that in America.
You are well aligned with the current world tendency of regress and conservatism.
Dark times ahead.
I plan on speaking in as civil a manner as your president elect, you motherfuckers. The future holder of that august office shall be my role model of composition and delivery.
That should get me teh pussy.
Now we will never legalize Cannabis in Europe. Everyone will just point at the US and tell us "This is what happens with a country on drugs!"
With Trump in office we're gonna need a LOT of weed.
So people voted for Trump in order to have an excuse for smoking weed? :-)
Well the Clintons were the ones who came up with 3 strikes.
I prefer the shrooms.
Can we agree now that maybe subjecting 4-8 years of your future to the results of a popularity contest is a stupid idea?
Don't blame me; I voted to leave the office vacant. If you voted, you have no right to complain. You agreed to live by the results. Why is everybody so upset? I thought this was the greatest system ever!
Strange people in ballot booths handing out swords is no basis for a system of government.
Go USA, go USA, you have successfully wrestled the title of "Dumbest Nation" from those Brexit Brits. This must be the first of all those wins that Trump promised us.
I will console myself by listening to Tom Lehrer sing "We Will All Go Together When We Go" and "Who's Next". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TIoBrob3bjI [youtube.com]
With Trump we may look forward to warm relations between Russia and America (not guaranteed, of course). Ms. Clinton wanted to institute a no-fly zone in Syria, which would have put U.S.–Russian relations in jeopardy, were a Russian plane to enter the zone.
Hmm, indeed, SpockLogic. Are we that dumb, that we voted to wrest control of our future from people who have been selling us down the river for 40 years? Are we that dumb, that we voted against the candidate who was lying to us with her "public" vs. "private" positions on the issues? Are Americans that dumb that they would shy away from electing a candidate who had every intention of finishing off the American manufacturing base that her husband's policies had not destroyed with NAFTA?
Look. I love Europe. Europe is a wonderful continent filled with culture and common sense. I think there is a lot there that America could emulate. I love Asia, too, and think that there is a lot of strength there. South America and Africa, too, are terrific places. The United States of America has quite lost its way, on the other hand, as a country. But having surveyed the length and breadth of this country again this summer, I have to say with absolute conviction that the American people themselves are still great. They are as steadfast, and as kind, and as firm friends of liberty as they ever were, and that can come out again and make the world a better place.
I lived in China, and no Chinese will ever put his life on the line to help the oppressed in, say, Africa. I lived in Japan, and no Japanese would put their neck on the line for a non-Japanese. I lived in Europe, and no European country will ever send her sons to fight for anything that does not benefit their own particular empire. But if there is any place in the world that feels forelorn and forgotten, there is still a chance that an American will lay down his or her life to protect them because it is the right thing to do.
But if there is any place in the world that feels forelorn and forgotten, there is still a chance that an American will lay down his or her life to protect them because it is the right thing to do.
Hold on there cowboy. How many sons of the upper crust (politicians, the rich, etc) end up as cannon fodder? More often than not the people who end up as cannon fodder will do so more out of necessity rather than conviction. After all, why is it that army recruiters do so much better in economically depressed areas of the country? I don't think for a minute that any significant percentage of US soldiers signed up to help the oppressed in overseas countries. On the contrary, the vast majority have no clue whatsoever about why they're being sent into those places. Do you really think that the average 19 year old, barely an adult still, and generally having much more interest in drinking beer and getting his dick wet than geo-political issues, is going to willingly put his life on the line because he wants to help some poor sod in a country that he may not even be able to point out on a map? A lot of them end up scratching their collective heads as why they were ever sent there in the first place, and why so many of their friends ended up dead.
I'm not making assumptions about the character of the soldiers (I''m sure there's some fine examples among them), but I'm also not going to romanticize the reasons for people signing up. I think that a lot of them are being tricked into a glorified version of what the army is all about and that politicians particularly will eagerly abuse the bad situations that a lot of these soldiers found themselves before they signed up. Heck, half the time (perhaps even all of the time?) politicians delude the rest of the populace into going to war in the first place. I vividly remember the non stop lies and deceit about the reasons for going to war in Iraq. Where are those WMDs again? And instead of finding WMDs, we created a massive vacuum that gave birth to Islamic State. And so this never ending story of geo-political elitist power grabbing bullshit goes on and on and on.
and no European country will ever send her sons to fight for anything that does not benefit their own particular empire
Even if this were true, do you really think this to be any different for the US? When is the last time that the US went to war for reasons other than to protect, or advance, its own self interest?
The Gulf War? We didn't keep Kuwait for ourselves afterward, nor did we Iraq. We stuck strictly to the UN mandate.
But the Gulf War was all about the flow of oil, wasn't it?
Perhaps a better example would have been the peacekeeping efforts in Somalia (UNITAF/UNOSOM). And while the US played a significant part in that peacekeeping effort, so did other nations (such as Pakistan, which contributed over 7,000 troops).
there is still a chance that an American will lay down his or her life to protect them because it is the right thing to do.
Say... what [wikipedia.org]? Since when?
"Yell, scream, gnash teeth... but please keep it civil. "Like Trump has been doing?
Even he promised to accept the result if Trump wins. So you shoud be at least that civil as well, shouldn't you?
the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact [wikipedia.org]. Both Hillary and Gore would've gotten in office under it.
Do you think the candidates would still campaign the way they do?
Hell even Bush Jr. said oh if it was that way I wold not have been in all the small states I would have exclusively stuck to the large cities.
What you propose is exactly opposite of what the people who designed the system wanted. They wanted everyone to get heard. That means, yes, the 'fly over' guys get some air time even though you would rather silence them.
So, how are the prices on Canadian property looking right now?
So, how are the prices on Canadian property looking right now?
Falling precipitously due to the filth that is moving into the neighborhood.
I grew up in a small town in the Rockies just south of the Canadian border. We used to slow down slightly to wave at the border agents as we crossed over several times a year. Calgarians would come down to ski at our hill by the thousands. Fast forward thirty years to last summer when we crossed southern Ontario on the way back from Detroit. From Checkpoint Charlie in Windsor to Point Pelee on Lake Eerie to Hamilton to Checkpoint Charlie at Niagara, 90% of the people we encountered were recent immigrants. There were very few native Canadians in evidence. Security at the border was nutsy. People were still friendlier than America, so thank goodness that's still true, but Canada today, at least the most populous swath of the most populous province, is a much different country from the one I knew as a kid. That's not a good thing.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
In spite of the polls. I mean, look at SN and Slashdot, the split was about 50-50 in the former and 60-40 pro Trump in the latter. Clinton should've been cleaning up in this crowd, the way Obama did.
Be a good soldier and follow his orders [twimg.com]. (Or do those pre-election orders not count anymore? Not sure...)
Any orders won't count because of the #NotMyPresident hashtag.
Gosh am I glad this election is over. I look forward to three-and-a-half years of geek news, w/o interruption.
Mod parent sarcastic.
Sarcastic mod not found.
Now, mod me informative (grin)
Trump won, basically, because Hillary lost.If the DNC had gone with Sanders (or even Michelle Obama, for Dogs' sake), they would have had a shot at winning.1. Instead, they watched Hillary steal the leader election from Sanders and went "meh, whatever". They should have been angry and given it to Sanders. THIS was the start of Hillary looking corrupt.2. The whole email/clinton foundation/state department/'what with a cloth?' thing just made her look stupid AND corrupt, and not concerned with security.3. That smug, arrogant smile that said "He doesn't have a CHANCE!!! (smiley face, winky face) made her look just arrogant and smug.4. Bill. Should have dumped his ass YEARS ago: that run up on the tarmac was wrong and smacked of corruption and arrogance.5. Trump... she tried to make him look silly, but everyone KNEW he was silly and it back-fired on her.
He won because she came off as a worse choice than him.If they'd stuck with Sanders, the story might very well have been different because (at least from my Canadian perspective) he seemed to be A LOT more palatable than her.
Hillary is corrupt, arrogant and smug. The DNC made their bed and now their lying in their vomit.
Will 'the world'TM be better off in 4 years? (well, what, 2.5 years before the next election cycle starts up and he will be forced to split his concentration between running for re-election and running the country).
It shall be interesting, but no... he's not going to start any new wars, although he may get interested in ending the current ones (whether through withdrawal or more, better support, but no, i don't believe he will be starting the next nuclear war).
Maybe he'll do well with Putin, or maybe Putin will try to play him. Hmmm.
Hillary's biggest problem wasn't the email server, or the Clinton Foundation or Benghazi. And it certainly wasn't Bill's long-ago affairs with assorted bimbos.
Her problem was the same as with past Democratic nominees Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry, and with Republican nominees Dole and Romney. These folks are all extremely capable and confident dealing with people at their own level, i.e. with senior officials in government and industry.
They all ran very top-down campaigns, aimed at locking down the endorsements and money they'd need.
I think for 2020, the Dems should look for a candidate who does not fit the US Senator mold. I'm not sure who that would be. Someone who enjoys watching sports on TV would be great - I've noticed that many politicians at the highest level (not Trump though) consider that to be a waste of time, so much that they have literally no knowledge of popular sports. Mitt, for example, made a fool himself when he showed up at the infield of the Daytona 500 and tried to smooze with racing fans.
No, the strategy the DNC should pursue next time is not to find better bait for their Establishment hook, but to actually put forward legislation that will give the 99% an economic shot in the arm.
They won't do that, of course, because the Establishment is never wrong. The Establishment is now and forever. They'll fall into the usual role of comfortable 'opposition' and watch the gravy train keep rolling into the station anyway. The only way they'd ever wake up and realize they need to do something else would be if everybody just walked away from them and they woke up to see their last crony had been voted out of office.
Some might lament the lost opportunity of having our first female president, but this is the only country in the world that has advanced enough socially to give the job of president to an orange garbage pile. Talk about diversity!
After they gave it to a chimpanzee, that's not such a huge leap
At closing time Wednesday, the S&P 500 had risen 1.10%; the Dow Jones Industrial Average had risen 1.39% and the NASDAQ Composite index had risen 1.09%.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EGSPC?p=^GSPC [yahoo.com]https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EDJI?p=^DJI [yahoo.com]https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/%5EIXIC?p=^IXIC [yahoo.com]
Does this mean we might FINALLY be rid of the Clintons?
Are we at the point where once Trump is in office, they go to Bill and Hillary with the van load of evidence against the Clinton Foundation and the RICO corruption and say "Look, for the good of the country, we aren't going to prosecute you, your daughter, or her husband, as long as you just fade into the sunset."?
Just to make them disappear forever.
Much as it would be nice to never hear from them again ... for the good of the country it would be better to see some jail time and/or asset forfeiture with regard to the Clinton Foundation given the information released in the Wkileaks e-mail dumps.
If high-level politicians are always 'given a free pass' then there is no realistic expectation that these people will keep to any sort of ethical standard.
I agree. The Clintons need to go to jail, period. The Clinton Foundation needs to be broken up, the partners to their crooked deals (they always have partners in their deals) should be rolled up, and their assets should be seized. There's a pile of booty in the basement of the Clinton Presidential Library that could be auctioned off, with the proceeds to go to the victims of their crimes. (I'm calling dibs on the portrait of Bill and Hillary with Down's, though; it's an amazing work.)
I see and agree , at least in part, with your point. The only counterpoint I can make is that with her having just lost the election, and some of the comments that Trump made in the debates ("You'd be in jail."), it may very much look like the persecution of political rivals, and regardless of how true or not that is, it might lead to mass protests, and major issues.
The Clintons might be too big to be jailed.... but if they are, stick their asses in gen pop, so that they can feel the ass raping that we have all been getting for years.
If Joe Biden had been the nominee, by now he'd look every bit as tarnished as HRC (or John Kerry in 2004, Obama in 2008, etc). And Joe knows it.
make them disappear forever
Is it chilly in here or is it just me?
Two in the back of the head is now considered a suicide if related to the Clintons... hadn't you heard?
"Compared to What" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNJfVXxrQU [youtube.com]Don't tune out during the long intro, wait for the lyrics.
What are you listening to tonight?
From https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0thXKGRYeA, [youtube.com] a hand-typed excerpt related to the U.S. election. Quoting President Putin (via translator):
A few hours ago, presidential elections have finished in the United States of America.We have been following this campaign with attention and I'd like to congratulate the American people with the end of the electoral cycle.And I'd also like to congratulate Mr. Donald Trump with his victory in these elections.We have heard his electoral slogans when he was still a candidate of the [unclear] and he spoke about resuming and restoring relations between Russia and the United States.We understand that the way to that would be difficult if taken into the account the current state of degradation of relations between the U.S. and Russia and as I have repeatedly said that it's not our fault that the Russian and American relations are in that poor state but Russia is ready and wants to restore the full fledged relation with the United States.I repeat, we understand that this will be a difficult way but we are ready to play our part in it and do everything to return the Russian/American relations to the stable and sustainable development track.This would serve the well-being of both Russian and American peoples and would have a positive impact on the general climate in the global affairs taking into account the special responsibility of Russia and the U.S. to sustain the global stability and security.
Yeah, Putin thinks that he's running the other superpower, but that train left when the USSR fell apart.
Have a look at http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp [globalfirepower.com]
Interesting. Now check this sub-listing for military aircraft,
http://www.globalfirepower.com/aircraft-total.asp [globalfirepower.com]USA more than triples 2nd place Russia.
On the other hand, http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp [globalfirepower.com]Russia has nearly 2x the tanks compared to either China or USA (3rd rank).
Or the basis for all the troop numbers, total population -- China, India, then USA 3rd. Russia 9th, less than half the US,