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]
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.