U.S.A. 2016 General Election

[matias93 7,535]

26 minutes ago, krbe said:

Baroness Warnock on Mrs Thatcher: '[She has a] patronising elocution voice [and] neat well-groomed clothes and hair, packaged together in a way that's not exactly vulgar, just low. [It fills me with] a kind of rage.' The progressive left can team up with the nobility now.

I told you so, this happens in every populist surge: it's the same as seeing Socialist Party officials mocking as stupid and guillible the same workers they once called 'the new man', when they voted Perón into the presidency in Argentina. Prepare for a much more elitist Democratic Party, elitist and patronizing, but somehow effective into their enclaves.

[BLANKBLANK 4,414]

6 hours ago, matias93 said:

I told you so, this happens in every populist surge: it's the same as seeing Socialist Party officials mocking as stupid and guillible the same workers they once called 'the new man', when they voted Perón into the presidency in Argentina. Prepare for a much more elitist Democratic Party, elitist and patronizing, but somehow effective into their enclaves.

How about a much more militant Democratic Party with SJW Brownshirts? All that anger, frustration and hurt isn't going to stay peaceful for long, and now that the right are in power suddenly the left is going to become more critical and harsher of the political establishment, like it was in the Dubya days- what a surprise! Maybe the protestors think it's some kind of return to the protests in the Civil Rights Movement. Zero Hedge, a website obsessed with finding all the gloom and doom in the world, has a good round up of yesterday's protests.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-09/rioting-snowflakes-hillary-fanatics-burn-flag-threaten-kill-not-my-president-trump

[matias93 7,535]

3 hours ago, Ln X said:

How about a much more militant Democratic Party with SJW Brownshirts? All that anger, frustration and hurt isn't going to stay peaceful for long, and now that the right are in power suddenly the left is going to become more critical and harsher of the political establishment, like it was in the Dubya days- what a surprise! Maybe the protestors think it's some kind of return to the protests in the Civil Rights Movement. Zero Hedge, a website obsessed with finding all the gloom and doom in the world, has a good round up of yesterday's protests.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-11-09/rioting-snowflakes-hillary-fanatics-burn-flag-threaten-kill-not-my-president-trump

We are talking about college students that happen to be protesters. Having been on massive student protests by years, I assure you that college students are too comfortable and cowards to stage a violent militancy that requires them to confront other protestors. They will dissolve in disarrange once someone mildly serious about using guns or physical force appears on front.

Simply put, people that pretends to be academics or professionals have too much to lose by risking themselves on a violent riot. Once again, the elitism can impose itsel: if there could be violence, it would be done by the militants that have nothing to lose, the ones that can get killed for simply walking. BLM manifestations and riots are nothing compared with what could happen, given some disgraceful coincidences. I really don't want this sad predictions come true, but those are the tendencies.

And talking about that: the chances that both Clinton or Trump would end their eventual presidential periods killed was already high months ago. There is simply too much crispation, too much fear based on the discourse of 'we or the catastrophe'. That works like a charm on campaign but soon or late leaves permanent scars.

[Sabretooth78 808]

18 hours ago, Larks2242 said:

Now we keep our fingers crossed for poor health among the supreme court, Trump has the oppertunity to replace possibly 4 justices if they all die or retire within his term, With the senate and house held by republican, His nominations should be a breeze.

You can root for continued bad; I'm at least going to hope for some good in the situation.  I guess that's the difference between a fascist conservative and a libertarian conservative.  So it seems you've reconciled your differences regarding Trump v. Cruz?

My oh my how easily the so-called conservatives (not to be confused with the real ones) sell out their beliefs.  I don't think they even know what they believe, judging by statements such as that and the frequency that the "what is a conservative" question comes up in their own debates.  And yet the RNC establishment wonders how Trump won their nomination going up against their best sell-out slimeballs.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed hoping Trump follows through on his word (admittedly his track record is not promising) and continues to cast the GOP to the wayside so that maybe us real conservatives can enjoy a real opposition party(ies) to counter the BS spewing forth from the Clinton-types.

[metarvo 710]

15 hours ago, Odainsaker said:

Obama may be going and Trump coming in, but his handlers have already assured their party behind closed doors that he will be what they want despite the public campaign acting.

So that's why the NeverTrumpers are suddenly changing course and offering their services.  The potential cabinet (and the preserved R majorities in the House and Senate) bear watching.

 

2 hours ago, Sabretooth78 said:

I'm keeping my fingers crossed hoping Trump follows through on his word (admittedly his track record is not promising) and continues to cast the GOP to the wayside so that maybe us real conservatives can enjoy a real opposition party(ies) to counter the BS spewing forth from the Clinton-types.

We're organized so that there are always two parties (no more, and no less).  Not that this is a good thing; it's just how it is.  Therefore, the best hope is in fact to take one of the existing parties and make it an opposition party.  The good late Reagan said as much:

Quote

“Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?”

 

[LexusInfernus 908]

19 hours ago, krbe said:

The US trade balance with China is in excess of -$365 billion dollar. Clearly not the most lucerative export market.

Only because most of the electronic gadgets are made in China. The US has switched from being a manufacturing economy to a services economy. Of course they are going to import stuff because its cheaper to manufacture somewhere else. 

But okay, lets say he starts his trade war and he actually gets what he wants, namely that all those manufacturing jobs move back to the United States. Will that actually be lucrative for the United States. Trump and his followers say yes while everyone who ever studied econ101 know Trump is wrong. Because what will happen? By artificially raising the prices of stuff produced in other countries, it will appear like its cheaper to buy stuff produced in the US. But is it cheaper? Of course not, the cost to produce in the US hasn't changed one bit and domestically produced goods won't get cheaper. In absolute terms the price goes up for every consumer. 

Will it be lucrative for the US economy? Well no because the average purchasing power goes down, not up. The only US companies that benefit are the ones that already produce domestically and who suddenly get less competition from foreign companies. But is that a good thing? Remember that protectionist measures for the American car industry back in the 80's set the American car industry back years because the decreased competition caused them to stagnate. That ultimately resulted in the US government needing to bail them out when their stagnant practices caused them trouble. Whatever you gain from protectionist measures now will come back as massive costs in the future.

And will there be more jobs because of it? Well no, because remember, China and other countries are a lot less happy to buy your stuff now that you created tariff barriers everywhere. Domestically produced consumption gains a small boost at the cost of a massive drop in sales in foreign markets.  

Quote

For some people, politics does not equal an ever growing wallet. Some may value a society where most people have a job and a good life, over the opportunity to fill their ever shrinking homes with more plastic crap bought for by unemployment benefits.

Yes. Which is why they should have voted Democrat. Places run by democrats perform better economically, have a smaller wealth gap, have lower unemployment rates, etc. Meanwhile, the places run by Republicans are for the most part poverty stricken ruins with inadequate social and economic support structures for the vast majority of people. And under republican presidents ever since Reagan, economic inequality and poverty rates increase, while the rich get ever richer. So that good life that people want? Yeah, NEVER going to happen under Trump or any other modern Republican for that matter. 

So to everyone who voted Trump, enjoy 8 years of stagnation and decline. To everyone who voted Hillary, organize, protest, resist and for gods sake, make sure you kick out the Republicans at local and state level and you can significantly reduce the damage Trump will cause. 

[Sabretooth78 808]

24 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

So to everyone who voted Trump, enjoy 8 more years of stagnation and decline.

Fixed that for you.

I do get the feeling that the George W. Obama presidency is finally over now, at least.  Maybe we'll get to experience a new type of decline.  Or maybe not.  We'll see.

[matias93 7,535]

20 minutes ago, Sabretooth78 said:

42 minutes ago, LexusInfernus said:

So to everyone who voted Trump, enjoy 8 more years of stagnation and decline.

Fixed that for you.

Do you really think someone like Trump will lose the opportunity to have a third, or even a fourth period? Knowing how most populist governments fare, it is highly probable he will have enough votes to ammend for more reelections. Only a series of terrible economic happenings and corruption scandals could block this. Populists simply don't lose popularity once they get to the office, provided they insist on the same script that worked on campaign.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

26 minutes ago, matias93 said:

Do you really think someone like Trump will lose the opportunity to have a third, or even a fourth period? Knowing how most populist governments fare, it is highly probable he will have enough votes to ammend for more reelections. Only a series of terrible economic happenings and corruption scandals could block this. Populists simply don't lose popularity once they get to the office, provided they insist on the same script that worked on campaign.

 

If Pence doesn't become president by 2018, terrible economic happenings, corruption, and violence are likely.

[Googlefluff 55]

I'm upset that people are calling the protesters SJW crybabies. Our generation is criticised for being lazy and politically inactive, then when we do take to the streets in non-violent protest against something we care about, those same people call us entitled brats who just don't understand the system. They protested Johnson and Nixon and say we could never do what they did, then we protest Trump and they still find ways to insult and criticise us. It's a double standard that disgusts me.

[jmsepe 2,039]

Trump already won but until now, I still find it funny that I cannot understand Trump's stands on major issues such as foreign policy, national security and yep, his motto. On another hand, I guess it's time to be more attentive on what's bound to happen in the coming years. *I'm looking at you China.

[Cyclone Boom 17,016]

Albeit on a much larger scale, it's true there are clear parallels here to the Brexit vote. People voting for change in the establishment, even if unsure exactly what this means. Many angry with how rigid policies have been running for so long, and desperate to see a new direction taken.

By electing Trump president, the wildcard has been played. There are risks involved that no one knows what he'll bring to the table. Some question his ideas, lack of political experience, or even his personality. He has made lots of pledges during the infamous campaign, but only time will tell whether these are achievable, or even the best route to take in today's diverse society. It's also human nature to disagree with one another, so you can't please everyone -- as evidenced in any election or referendum. We are all unique and have our own opinions.

Whether you support him or not, one thing Mr Trump has undoubtedly shown is strong motivation and passion to succeed. Having won the election, he rightly deserves the opportunity to lead America in a new direction. Change doesn’t come easily, and without a doubt, there is a long (and possibly bumpy) road ahead. This is a fragile world and these are uncertain times. But to enact positive change, sometimes a strong leader isn't always a bad thing.

The big question is: can he and will he deliver?

[matias93 7,535]

1 hour ago, Googlefluff said:

I'm upset that people are calling the protesters SJW crybabies. Our generation is criticised for being lazy and politically inactive, then when we do take to the streets in non-violent protest against something we care about, those same people call us entitled brats who just don't understand the system. They protested Johnson and Nixon and say we could never do what they did, then we protest Trump and they still find ways to insult and criticise us. It's a double standard that disgusts me.

That hat fitted me; being a leftist, militant on a leftist party,  and once frequent protestor (remember chilean students on 2011?), I feel in many cases, the protesting youth (millenials if you want, I don't understand that categorisation anyway) are moving exactly for the wrong causes, in the wrong moments, in a way that strongly reminds of the leftist protests that helped Nixon to the presidency in 1968 (this Vox's article is a first person testimony of those actions and its consequences, a great read).

Have I the right to say frightened and saddened people not to mourn their political loss? No. Have I right to dismiss the reasonable fear of minorities about the triumphant rage that is being already unraveled, calling them 'crybabies'? No, in any case. What I'm claiming to have a right to be displeased about is to see intelligent, capable people, that has been prepared for years to be the intellectual elite of its country, being incapable to articulate a sensible argument, and instead moving into their comfort zone, denying half their compatriots a fair and legal electoral victory, no matter how deplorables, racists and xenophobes they could be. Having all the capability to do something productive and creative, to raise awareness about the importance of the values they are repressenting, to frame their fight into one that every american could embrace as own, they just recede to their 'safe spaces', self-segregating themselves, and cry injustice. Injustice is a fact, a social ill that eats lives every moment on empoverished communities, on isolated minorities, on people systematically abused. The real Injustice, the one that's worth fight against, does not reach your university campus (nor mine), does not hit us, the systematical winners of the history.

The point is: Trump didn't win because of him being the biggest bad, there is no sinister plot or conspiracy behind: there was a legitimate political outcome of an accorded and accepted procediment (no one raised the worry of the election to be stolen from Clinton on the electoral college until after the results came out, when they know whom would have benefited from a rules' change). Once questioning the electoral process becomes a massive hobby, there is no coming back: no result can be ever considered fair.

Maybe I'm worrying too much, or being absurdly exaggerated about what can perfectly be just a bunch of bad losers expressing their feelings without implicit risk. But I born and grew on a family that was hit by both an untold political crispation and a subsequent long and sanguinary dictatorship, and I've always listened stories that make an horrible fit with what's happening now in the US: both the persecution to minorities and the loss of the bare minimum confidence on democracy were, and are part of the same tragic phenomenon. Is too easy to go blind to the ways oneself brokes democracy apart, to not to look at the ulgy tribalism that oneself preaches and practices. Until is too late, of course...

My critic, harsh as it can be, is not a mocking dismissal: I'm not saying US youngsters are incapable of doing anything good for their country; I know they can, and they must do it. But the only way they will accomplish what their country, unknowingly, demands of them, is by going outside their safe spaces, to talk away of their echo chambers, to be intellectually challenged by the same people they have dismissed as dumb, crazy or guillible. There is no hope for politics if the social fabric isn't woven again, and the only way to do it is by finding the common 'one' into the rejected 'other'.

[Googlefluff 55]

24 minutes ago, matias93 said:

snip

I agree with everything you said. I can't say Trump didn't win fairly and that he has no right to office, and in that sense I disagree with the protesters. It is worth noting though, that the greatest war and mass genocide in history were caused by a legitimately elected leader. It's hard not to see the frightening parallels between this election and that one. My qualm is with the people who say they have no right to protest at all; that they are entitled and naive for even trying to stand up for what they believe in. I think they also deserve immense credit for remaining as non-violent as they have. I can't say I would be able to give anti-Clinton protesters the same credit if she had won, if the contents of that Twitter page are any indication.

[tigerbuilder 131]

Well said! Cyclone Boom

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

I'll just leave here a Facebook post I wrote about the election. Disclaimer: I do not support Trump. If I were both American and of franchised age, I would have voted Democrat every election since 2000 (Gore, Kerry and Obama twice), but I would not have voted for either Hillary or Trump.

~~

"Now that the buzz has died down a bit and people have had some time to process what happened in the last 48 hours, I just wanted to put down my thoughts on the elephant (pun?) in the room: how did we elect Trump?

It is a massive failure of the Left in reading the electorate. Unlike many people I see from the Left posting on social media and the like, I don't believe that those who voted for Donald Trump, save for a very small minority, are stupid. Whereas the Left was willing to attack Trump by claiming he expressed racist and sexist views, as well as acting on them, I do not believe that those voting for him took this into account when they decided to cast their ballot for Trump. I have also seen people make excuses for Hillary losing the election, by claiming misguided views such as "white male privilege" and the like.

Perhaps understandably, Trump voters have placed a higher priority on economic issues than social issues. After all, where their shipyard, steelworks, auto plant or mines are closing down in the face of global downturn, how can these people place the issue of equality above when they are worried about being able to put food on the table for their family?

I am personally not disappointed in the results of the election. My faith went shortly after the primaries wrapped up, after Hillary Clinton won the primary over Bernie Sanders. Although I have seen people say that she is "qualified and full of experience", this is a double edged sword; she was very closely involved with the Federal executive during the turbulent times, and it is only natural for voters to shy away from someone who represents the old corporatist view that the average American associates with feeding the top of the chain whilst slashing from the bottom.

The trend appears to be continuing, where right-wing populists such as Trump, as well as Farage in the United Kingdom and Hanson in Australia are getting elected. Instead of decrying the voters as "bigoted" and "stupid", the Left needs to learn the real reasons why they are losing votes to the populists instead of chastising them. Putting your head in the sand and screaming at the problem will not make it go away. Otherwise, they will further drive a wedge between society."

[Terring 6,476]

Is that true?

[APSMS 1,893]

2 hours ago, ROFLyoshi said:

The trend appears to be continuing, where right-wing populists such as Trump, as well as Farage in the United Kingdom and Hanson in Australia are getting elected. Instead of decrying the voters as "bigoted" and "stupid", the Left needs to learn the real reasons why they are losing votes to the populists instead of chastising them

I think part of this is that the media (which is typically liberal-leaning), along with vocal celebrities and social media/tech giants, has made the conservative or religious ideology so "untenable" that no one wants to admit to holding these positions. Personally I am socially conservative, I support smaller government, but at the same time, in an imperfect world I would prefer a number of generally more left-leaning political policies (while maintaining my more conservative social positions).

To me it seems that it has made speaking your mind very uncomfortable. To be a serious Christian is to be marginalized. To regard policies like affirmative action as biased is to be racist. To be a woman and not vote for Hillary Clinton is to commit the mother of all sins (per Madeline Kahn), and be labeled either a sexist, misogynist, or bigot. The problem with this is that it hasn't stopped people from either holding these ideas or values, simply made them unpopular to talk about out loud among unfamiliar company.

I would suggest that, although there is strong support for liberal policies, there remains significant support for conservative policies. The media and political/ruling elite have moved left faster than their populations, and then made the alternative so distasteful that no one wants to talk about it. Except that voting booths are private, so that's where people have spoken their mind.

I think another problem is that, in America at least, social and political conservatism, as well as social and political liberalism, have been bundled in the same package, yet I think you will find that most minority populations in America, particularly Latinos and blacks, tend to be significantly more socially conservative than the Democrats that they usually vote for. Part of this is likely due to their religious standing; Latinos and blacks tend to be more strongly religious (Christian/Catholic) than the average non-evangelical white person. According to the NY Times, Trump did better among minorities than Mitt Romney did in 2012, both with blacks as well as with Latinos. You can take this data with a grain of salt, since overall I think voter turnout among minorities was down despite Clinton's ground game, but it tells that lacking an inspirational candidate, the democrats did worse across the board among constituents that they expected to turn out in similar numbers in the past two elections (they still won them handily, no doubt, but the lower margins implies that the unpopular Trump supporters among them continued to turn out and vote).

This disconnect between the democrats and their right-leaning (socially) base of minorities creates conundrums like Prop 8 in CA, which banned gay marriage. It won 52% to 48%, most likely because the Latino and black populations that turned out to vote for Obama also voted to pass prop 8. This is based both on preliminary polls as well as exit polling, though the preliminary polls show the prop losing, again likely because they firstly did not probably consider the minorities to be likely voters, as well as because the media had vilified the measure so much that it suppressed polling responses (since these polls have to be done either in person or over the phone).

We've imagined that silence from the opposition equals consensus, and I think Trump's wins in FL, PA, MI, NC, and WI show that this is simply not the case.

13 minutes ago, Terring said:

Is that true?

If that 46.9% had voted for Gary Johnson, he would be president right now.

If you don't vote for anyone, you fully bear the responsibility of that decision, and deserve whoever the ones who do vote choose. As a non-voter, I was fully prepared to accept whoever won the election. It just so happens that Trump won. They're both crooks. I have no idea what he'll do in office. I fully expect to be entertained.

[Sabretooth78 808]

3 hours ago, Terring said:

Is that true?

Nobody also won in 2012.  It's generally a common theme.  So in other words, Clinton eeked out a popular vote with just better than a quarter of the vote (where else is it mathematically possible to win with 26% in a race of three!?!?) and Trump, not far behind, won by what is essentially accident of geographic relationships between said votes.  (Rhetorical question:  Can you still say one person, one vote if it matters where your vote is?)  Tyranny of the minority.

The scary thing to take away from that is that no more than 48.6% of the voting population is awake - and regardless whether Trump's presidency is a smashing success or a dumpster fire, those in their comas on either side will remain blissfully ignorant.

[matias93 7,535]

13 minutes ago, Sabretooth78 said:

Nobody also won in 2012.  It's generally a common theme.  So in other words, Clinton eeked out a popular vote with just better than a quarter of the vote (where else is it mathematically possible to win with 26% in a race of three!?!?) and Trump, not far behind, won by what is essentially accident of geographic relationships between said votes.  (Rhetorical question:  Can you still say one person, one vote if it matters where your vote is?)  Tyranny of the minority.

The scary thing to take away from that is that no more than 48.6% of the voting population is awake - and regardless whether Trump's presidency is a smashing success or a dumpster fire, those in their comas on either side will remain blissfully ignorant.

In any case, there is no country where voluntary voting produces much more than 50-55% turnout; there are cases of 80-90%, but there is by forcing people to assist (for example, in Brazil to vote is a requisite to recieve the Bolsa Família, something like food stamps). It is simply normal that something like half the population don't give a damn about politics; maybe Trump reelection campaign could concite a bit more, like 2/3 turnout, but it all depends on the ability of both parties to convince people that basically all their lives are in stake, and to not exhaust them with a year and half of campaign.

For a good example, look at Canada: a eight week campaign with a clear objective, to oust Harper, no matter who gets the office. People was effectively mobilised and worked strategically instead of fighting each other.

[krbe 193]

19 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Only because most of the electronic gadgets are made in China. The US has switched from being a manufacturing economy to a services economy. Of course they are going to import stuff because its cheaper to manufacture somewhere else. 

The US imports high-end manufactured products, and exports raw materials. In that sense, the US is behaving rather like a colony. 

19 hours ago, LexusInfernus said:

Trump and his followers say yes while everyone who ever studied econ101 know Trump is wrong.

Well, here's the thing: Everyone who ever studied econ101 make assumptions. Their assumptions just seem more right, because they're covered in a thin layer of academic integrity.

However, the further into the future you move, the more the economist become a soothsayer with a title. We've tried economist-run societies. They didn't work out. Why should go back to that model?

6 hours ago, ROFLyoshi said:

Instead of decrying the voters as "bigoted" and "stupid", the Left needs to learn the real reasons why they are losing votes to the populists instead of chastising them.

It is incredible that Western democracies have spent some fortyfive years growing up (1945-1990) and then twentyfive years trying to get rid of their power. The major problem around the world is that politicians are unwilling to lead, preferring the safe status quo over doing anything that might upset their financial masters, foreign partners, media, or their own party elites.

Well, if you're going to let people have a say, they might just grow tired of that.

15 minutes ago, matias93 said:

In any case, there is no country where voluntary voting produces much more than 50-55% turnout; there are cases of 80-90%, but there is by forcing people to assist (for example, in Brazil to vote is a requisite to recieve the Bolsa Família, something like food stamps).

In Denmark the turnout for national elections are consistently between 80 and 90%; Norway recorded a 78.2% turnout at last national election.

[matias93 7,535]

1 hour ago, krbe said:

1 hour ago, matias93 said:

In any case, there is no country where voluntary voting produces much more than 50-55% turnout; there are cases of 80-90%, but there is by forcing people to assist (for example, in Brazil to vote is a requisite to recieve the Bolsa Família, something like food stamps).

In Denmark the turnout for national elections are consistently between 80 and 90%; Norway recorded a 78.2% turnout at last national election.

My error: almost all counties outside some strange western outliers.

The US has always been seen as exceptional because is compared with those counties, while its historical development points precisely to a post-colonial scheme (Russia can be safely put into this group, too).

Indeed, the best model for the US political development is grouping it with Colombia, Costa Rica and Uruguay: elitist bipartidism with catch all parties, well into the 20th century because of a civil war cementing the division, then changing into a 3 party system with one of two: rural-urban conflict with conservative populism (Colombia) or elitist left-leaning party against rightist and conservative parties (Uruguay and Costa Rica).

[MilitantRadical 2,844]

On 10/11/2016 at 4:48 PM, LexusInfernus said:

Only because most of the electronic gadgets are made in China. The US has switched from being a manufacturing economy to a services economy. Of course they are going to import stuff because its cheaper to manufacture somewhere else. 

But okay, lets say he starts his trade war and he actually gets what he wants, namely that all those manufacturing jobs move back to the United States. Will that actually be lucrative for the United States. Trump and his followers say yes while everyone who ever studied econ101 know Trump is wrong. Because what will happen? By artificially raising the prices of stuff produced in other countries, it will appear like its cheaper to buy stuff produced in the US. But is it cheaper? Of course not, the cost to produce in the US hasn't changed one bit and domestically produced goods won't get cheaper. In absolute terms the price goes up for every consumer. 

Will it be lucrative for the US economy? Well no because the average purchasing power goes down, not up. The only US companies that benefit are the ones that already produce domestically and who suddenly get less competition from foreign companies. But is that a good thing? Remember that protectionist measures for the American car industry back in the 80's set the American car industry back years because the decreased competition caused them to stagnate. That ultimately resulted in the US government needing to bail them out when their stagnant practices caused them trouble. Whatever you gain from protectionist measures now will come back as massive costs in the future.

And will there be more jobs because of it? Well no, because remember, China and other countries are a lot less happy to buy your stuff now that you created tariff barriers everywhere. Domestically produced consumption gains a small boost at the cost of a massive drop in sales in foreign markets.  

Yes. Which is why they should have voted Democrat. Places run by democrats perform better economically, have a smaller wealth gap, have lower unemployment rates, etc. Meanwhile, the places run by Republicans are for the most part poverty stricken ruins with inadequate social and economic support structures for the vast majority of people. And under republican presidents ever since Reagan, economic inequality and poverty rates increase, while the rich get ever richer. So that good life that people want? Yeah, NEVER going to happen under Trump or any other modern Republican for that matter. 

So to everyone who voted Trump, enjoy 8 years of stagnation and decline. To everyone who voted Hillary, organize, protest, resist and for gods sake, make sure you kick out the Republicans at local and state level and you can significantly reduce the damage Trump will cause. 

Best thing to do with your predictions right now is sit back, relax, let things happen, then come back and say "told ya so" in a few months or a year.

On 09/06/2016 at 3:43 PM, MilitantRadical said:

If I were American I'd be tempted to vote for Trump just to watch progressives have a total meltdown, run riot, burn down their own communities, commit suicide, while simultaneously blaming everything they do on Trump.

It's happening. Told ya so.

 

11 hours ago, ROFLyoshi said:

The trend appears to be continuing, where right-wing populists such as Trump, as well as Farage in the United Kingdom and Hanson in Australia are getting elected. Instead of decrying the voters as "bigoted" and "stupid", the Left needs to learn the real reasons why they are losing votes to the populists instead of chastising them. Putting your head in the sand and screaming at the problem will not make it go away. Otherwise, they will further drive a wedge between society."

Hate to make such a generalization, but the left will not learn from their mistake. In fact they seem to be sinking deeper into their delusion. Marxist revolutionaries have taken over the left wing. They've polluted their minds and all they can see is race, gender, and sexuality. Before the left can take on the right they need to sanitize their ideology, then they need to start actually listening to the arguments the right is making instead of yelling "das raciss" or "misogykees". But I doubt they'll do that because they can't let go of the oppression narrative, it's the only thing that makes them feel special and morally superior.

 

On 31/10/2016 at 5:22 PM, Jasoncw said:

Many people (including me) are flabbergasted that he's doing so well, but that's only because the expectations are so low for him. So far in the polls Clinton has been about 4-8% ahead of him. In 2012, the polling had Obama about 2% ahead of Romney most of the time, except for a burst when Obama was about 4% ahead and that was considered apocalyptic for the Romney campaign and even the normal 2% lead was enough for respectable outlets to be pretty sure that Obama was going to win. The public polls in the final days had Obama up 2% and on election day he won by 4% which was considered to be a very solid victory.

You were looking at the wrong polls and you weren't analyzing the internal data. People have been saying for months that the polls were over-sampled with democrats and they re-weighted many of them to give Hillary a lead. Check out Bill Mitchell's twitter timeline, he predicted 100% Trump victory weeks ago. LA Times Tracking poll and IBD poll both had Trump very close and ahead of Hillary.

Here's a pretty good, self-reflective, breakdown of why the media got it wrong.

 

[metarvo 710]

That says it all.  In one paragraph, he describes what I've thought for years: by and large, the news media is a failure!  Of course, I've stayed away from most of these kinds of media sources.  For instance, I can't say I've ever read that newspaper Joe was holding up in that show.  That isn't to say that there's not bias on the other side: Fox News says "Hi."  However, since pretty much all media is in fact biased nowadays, it boils down IMHO to a matter of following the media which has one's bias of choice, or else following no media at all.

[matias93 7,535]

1 hour ago, MilitantRadical said:

But I doubt they'll do that because they can't let go of the oppression narrative, it's the only thing that makes them feel special and morally superior.

IIRC, traditional leftists in all the world have played the oppression card, Marx included. And they were (and in some places still are) the dominant political force of the 20th century. The relevant difference is that traditional leftists appealed to indistinct masses of workers, not to a myriad of always competing minorities that cannot be united on a common cause. Being frank, that has been the historical failing of the US left, that somehow they managed to contagie to the once competent left movements in the world.

  Edited November 11, 2016 by matias93  
Typos, of course...

[LexusInfernus 908]

3 hours ago, krbe said:

The US imports high-end manufactured products, and exports raw materials. In that sense, the US is behaving rather like a colony. 

Again, the US has a primarily a services based economy, so obviously they aren't producing and exporting manufactured products all that much anymore. 

3 hours ago, krbe said:

Well, here's the thing: Everyone who ever studied econ101 make assumptions. Their assumptions just seem more right, because they're covered in a thin layer of academic integrity.

However, the further into the future you move, the more the economist become a soothsayer with a title. We've tried economist-run societies. They didn't work out. Why should go back to that model?

You don't need to go into the future to know that protectionism is a bloody stupid idea, you only need to look into a history book to know it doesn't work. This gets covered in econ 101 but it also gets covered in history 101. 

So no, I'm not arguing that we should have a bunch of economics professors run the country, far from it in fact. I agree with you that economists are for the most part little more than soothsayers. But to do the exact opposite and ignore important historical lessons is equally dumb. Protectionism won't help the people who are hit the hardest by globalization nor can globalization be reversed. 

3 hours ago, krbe said:

It is incredible that Western democracies have spent some fortyfive years growing up (1945-1990) and then twentyfive years trying to get rid of their power. The major problem around the world is that politicians are unwilling to lead, preferring the safe status quo over doing anything that might upset their financial masters, foreign partners, media, or their own party elites.

Well, if you're going to let people have a say, they might just grow tired of that.

Politicians are unwilling to lead because actually telling the truth to people tends to get punished in the voting booth. 

[APSMS 1,893]

Hey, I found this list of 10 things that are now popular again since Trump is in office. All great stuff we can look forward to for at least the next 4 years!

 

I had been wondering what was missing from my life for the last 8 years. Now I know.

[Sabretooth78 808]

So I read that Trump is selecting Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin as Secretary of the Interior?  I'm beginning to see in Trump just another neocon - just like our former and current presidents - rewarding failure at every turn.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

So much for the "I realize I don't know everything about everything so I'm going to surround myself with good advisors" campaign shtick.  The one thing I did like about him.  Yes, the reason Barack Obama was able to win in 2008 in the first place is now going to be given a fairly prominent role.  These so-called conservatives sure work in mysterious ways!  (Not to mention living off government paychecks.)

[LexusInfernus 908]

9 minutes ago, Sabretooth78 said:

So I read that Trump is selecting Sarah "I can see Russia from my house" Palin as Secretary of the Interior?  I'm beginning to see in Trump just another neocon - just like our former and current presidents - rewarding failure at every turn.  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

So much for the "I realize I don't know everything about everything so I'm going to surround myself with good advisors" campaign shtick.  The one thing I did like about him.  Yes, the reason Barack Obama was able to win in 2008 in the first place is now going to be given a fairly prominent role.  These so-called conservatives sure work in mysterious ways!

Yeah along with such bright lights like Newt Gingrich Chris Christie. Oh well. 

 

[Sabretooth78 808]

I may have to take back my previous comment.  We may very well just be entering the 5th term of the Donald W. Obama presidency.  Or is it Barack W. Trump?  All we need now is Willard "Repeal and Replace Obamacare" Romney as Secretary of Health & Human Services (or whatever it's called).

Oh, and put Hillary in charge of the IT Department.  I hear she's good with the email servers.