US Presidential Election 2016

[pink_triangle]

16 hours ago, russycarps said:

I'm still curious to see if he lasts a whole term. I guess we will find out how much of the presidents job can be delegated to his underlings, because there is absolutely no way he will put in all of the hard graft himself.

 

 

I hope he serves the full term because I think the alternative is more of an idealist and potentially more dangerous. I suspect he won't risk a second and will be happy to keep his 100% record and go back to business.

Interestingly for all the talk of the popular vote. While I think there is an argument to move to a popular vote, I think it's flawed to translate these result to a popular vote one, as the campaigns would have worked completely different under those systems.

[russycarps]

18 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

I hope he serves the full term because I think the alternative is more of an idealist and potentially more dangerous. I suspect he won't risk a second and will be happy to keep his 100% record and go back to business.

Interestingly for all the talk of the popular vote. While I think there is an argument to move to a popular vote, I think it's flawed to translate these result to a popular vote one, as the campaigns would have worked completely different under those systems.

I hope he serves the full term too. I have some hope about his presidency as I get the impression he is desperate to be liked by "the people", so will do whatever it takes to be popular. Hopefully this results in some good decisions that benefit the masses. Obviously it's more likely that his wont happen!

Yep the popular vote argument is nonsense. As trump himself has said, he would have campaigned in a completely different way, presumably meaning he'd have concentrated on the large cities. I thought most people realised that winning the popular vote is not the best way to decide an election. Seems that is not the case.

It's daft to complain about the rules after the event. See also: brexit. People complaining about minimum turnouts etc, after the event. It's just silly.

 

[eFestivals]

Trump might query the election result if he loses. That's proof that trump is evil, a nazi, a non-accepter of democracy.

I wonder what the lovely Greens are, with the support of Clinton voters?

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/23/jill-stein-election-recount-fund-michigan-wisconsin-pennsylvania

I suggest that anyone wishing to comment actually reads the article before commenting, cos otherwise the chances of looking foolish are quite big.

Edited November 24, 2016 by eFestivals

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I hope he serves the full term too. I have some hope about his presidency as I get the impression he is desperate to be liked by "the people", so will do whatever it takes to be popular. Hopefully this results in some good decisions that benefit the masses. Obviously it's more likely that his wont happen!

Like you, I think he just wants to be loved. Like you i think he'll do what's popular to try and achieve that.

Where it gets dodgy is that popularism can be dangerous particularly around the more polarising ideas, so that needs watching, tho I reckon that sort of thing would horrify Trump as a generality.

But he's also not a pussy cat who'll wave in the wind of public opinion. He's got things he wants to do, and the more unaccepting of anything he might do his opponents are is only gong to harden him and not soften him.

So I reckon that if people want to see him do his worst all they need to do is be the fascist he gets called, and refuse to allow him his victory.

 

5 minutes ago, russycarps said:

Yep the popular vote argument is nonsense. As trump himself has said, he would have campaigned in a completely different way, presumably meaning he'd have concentrated on the large cities. I thought most people realised that winning the popular vote is not the best way to decide an election. Seems that is not the case.

He won by the rules. That's all that matters in the end.

All versions of democracy have these sorts of issues, where the rules have the effect of seemingly disenfranchising some people, so at the end of the day all anywhere can do is pick the version they most prefer and then follow thru on the rules they've chosen.

If/when 'the people' decide they're not being well-served by the version they've chosen, they're free to pick another system and to go round the loop again.

You can point at an election like Trump's to use as justification for why the rules might be changed, but when you start saying the rules shouldn't count for the contest that's just happened because you don't like the outcome, that's the start of the rejection of democracy.

 

5 minutes ago, russycarps said:

It's daft to complain about the rules after the event. See also: brexit. People complaining about minimum turnouts etc, after the event. It's just silly.

Yep.

A super-majority would be a better way to go for constitutional issues IMO, but I'm well aware that's nothing I was flagging up as badly wrong before 23rd June.

I suspect that the idea of a super-majority might end up killing the SNP's indy dreams, tho we'll have to see where opinion goes over the next few years. Sturgeon can probably still squeeze one in on a simple majority if she actually follows thru before the 2 years after A50 is over. Beyond that, I reckon it'll be super majorities.

 

 

 

 

[russycarps]

I see Trump has said he is strongly committed to NATO afterall. The idea that he would pull the US out of NATO was always massively exaggerated during the campaign, but I dont blame him one bit for complaining about (most of) the europeans not meeting the 2% funding target.

I read the other day that germany spends under 1.2% of it's GDP on its military. I'm no war-monger, but you can see his point. Why should a massively wealthy nation like germany get away with it? Even though we do hit the 2% target, it is still only thanks to creative accounting (we include certain funds that never used to be included).

 

[eFestivals]

14 minutes ago, russycarps said:

I see Trump has said he is strongly committed to NATO afterall. The idea that he would pull the US out of NATO was always massively exaggerated during the campaign, but I dont blame him one bit for complaining about (most of) the europeans not meeting the 2% funding target.

The 2% funding thing has been a growing row for more than several decades (at least as far back as Gulf War 1 in the early 90s), so nothing of that is particularly attached to Trump.

Rather amusingly, the latest "this is what we should do post-indy" thing that's come from Scotland and is being hailed far and wide as iScotland's future has an iScotland fully committing to never meet that NATO requirement, and some fools think NATO would accept them with a commitment to never meet NATO treaty terms. They use the underpayments of others to justify that - while refusing to recognise those other countries have never made the same "we never will" commitment, and also say that because everyone loves Scotland, Scotland can do whatever the fuck it likes for it's own benefit and stuff everyone else. So much for no Scottish exceptionalism and them being worldly wise and the partner everyone will be desperate to be friendly with.

[russycarps]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The 2% funding thing has been a growing row for more than several decades (at least as far back as Gulf War 1 in the early 90s), so nothing of that is particularly attached to Trump.

Rather amusingly, the latest "this is what we should do post-indy" thing that's come from Scotland and is being hailed far and wide as iScotland's future has an iScotland fully committing to never meet that NATO requirement, and some fools think NATO would accept them with a commitment to never meet NATO treaty terms. They use the underpayments of others to justify that - while refusing to recognise those other countries have never made the same "we never will" commitment, and also say that because everyone loves Scotland, Scotland can do whatever the fuck it likes for it's own benefit and stuff everyone else. So much for no Scottish exceptionalism and them being worldly wise and the partner everyone will be desperate to be friendly with.

blimey, I didnt know they'd come out and explicitly said they would not meet the requirement. Sounds like the sort of statement a country that knows they will never have to actually face up to the reality would say...

It is amusing to note that the 2nd highest contributors in terms of % of GDP is......Greece  (I know it's mostly willy waving at Turkey, but still)

 

[eFestivals]

Bannon said, “I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/steve-bannon-trump-hollywood-reporter-interview-231624

[eFestivals]

and more amusingly, the w*nkers decided that that part was of no importance, but loved the part below while failing to understand it....

 “Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power," he said. "It only helps us when they get it wrong. When they’re blind to who we are and what we’re doing.”

Donkeys led by the nose, into shit of their own making.

 

[eFestivals]

“It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan,” Bannon said. “With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”

hey zahidf, here's your cue, just look at that mention of the 1930s, you can be sure he's on about Hitler, right?

[5co77ie]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Bannon said, “I’m not a white nationalist, I’m a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist.”

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/steve-bannon-trump-hollywood-reporter-interview-231624

I read that the other day - I think it's totally the blueprint Trump will use, trouble is it isn't new, and it depends whether he tries to re-energize America's old industries (a mistake in my opinion) or try to create new ones. I think if Trump unleashes environmental Armageddon (and gets a lot of heat for it) they're not going to reign for 50 years. The Republicans are full of dinosaurs taking the old money - Trump is likely to get dragged into their tar pits and that way lies disaster I think.

[5co77ie]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

“It’s everything related to jobs. The conservatives are going to go crazy. I’m the guy pushing a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan,” Bannon said. “With negative interest rates throughout the world, it’s the greatest opportunity to rebuild everything. Shipyards, ironworks, get them all jacked up. We’re just going to throw it up against the wall and see if it sticks. It will be as exciting as the 1930s, greater than the Reagan revolution — conservatives, plus populists, in an economic nationalist movement.”

hey zahidf, here's your cue, just look at that mention of the 1930s, you can be sure he's on about Hitler, right?

he's on about the powerhouse America became from 1937 - don't forget they were growing economically and wanted to stay out of any war.

[eFestivals]

Just now, 5co77ie said:

I read that the other day - I think it's totally the blueprint Trump will use, trouble is it isn't new, and it depends whether he tries to re-energize America's old industries (a mistake in my opinion) or try to create new ones. I think if Trump unleashes environmental Armageddon (and gets a lot of heat for it) they're not going to reign for 50 years. The Republicans are full of dinosaurs taking the old money - Trump is likely to get dragged into their tar pits and that way lies disaster I think.

I think there's a lot in there which shows what Trump's focus will be, but I also reckon you don't want to pay too much attention to someone over-blowing their self-importance or how successful their ideas will be.

If we go back about a decade, the line from plenty on 'the left' in the UK - me included - was that the tories were dead, in terminal decline, were unlikely to ever win another election.

It's not just 'the right' who need to wise up to mistakes.

 

[eFestivals]

Just now, 5co77ie said:

he's on about the powerhouse America became from 1937 - don't forget they were growing economically and wanted to stay out of any war.

yep, i know, he's on about Roosevelt's "new deal"

But I bet there's some people like zahidf somewhere running around like headless chickens telling people it's a reference to the nazis.

[5co77ie]

anyone who brings the world out of global economic decline will be hailed a hero, and if anything having a businessman at the helm is probably the best plan - politics isn't needed now it's economics.

Edited November 24, 2016 by 5co77ie

[eFestivals]

32 minutes ago, russycarps said:

blimey, I didnt know they'd come out and explicitly said they would not meet the requirement. Sounds like the sort of statement a country that knows they will never have to actually face up to the reality would say...

It's not the SNP, it's indy-supporting nutters who are too self-absorbed about trying to make an economic case stand up.

The same article had rUK paying iScottish pensions, as well as taking on half of Scotland's share of the national debt, so it's in proper nutty land.

 

32 minutes ago, russycarps said:

It is amusing to note that the 2nd highest contributors in terms of % of GDP is......Greece  (I know it's mostly willy waving at Turkey, but still)

Greece has the highest spend as a proportion of GDP on the military to external suppliers of any country in the world, I think.

Yep, it's all about Turkey - and to be fair to them, perhaps not unjusified.

[zahidf]

Did he say if he was a member of the alt right?

Nobody disagrees about increased employment. The Nazi echoes comes when it goes hand in hand with measures to limit freedoms and criticism (Like him saying on the trail he wants to stop newspapers lying about him by looking at the first amendment) and jailing political opponents (which has walked back on but still made a central part of his campaign).

Oh, and the singling out of a specific group for blame rather than himself. Lets see who he blames if/when he tanks the economy.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Did he say if he was a member of the alt right?

Nobody disagrees about increased employment. The Nazi echoes comes when it goes hand in hand with measures to limit freedoms and criticism (Like him saying on the trail he wants to stop newspapers lying about him by looking at the first amendment) and jailing political opponents (which has walked back on but still made a central part of his campaign).

Oh, and the singling out of a specific group for blame rather than himself. 

There's a lot that's objectionable about Trump and Bannon, just as there's much which is objectionable about Clinton and Obama. We could talk those thru forever and they'd still be the same objectionable. 

There's always a cause of anything. A finger of blame can always be pointed, the important part is whether it's justifiably pointed - which is something you've been failing with on a TRULY MASSIVE scale recently. You're in no sound place to call out others about that.

Did you, for example, see how you got mugged by a Bannon quote (I posted it above for you) you've been happy to spread (tho amusingly failed to understand he was thanking YOU for his victory) in your attempts to falsely smear him?

And using guilt-by-association as your method, the *exact* basis for the Muslim register you say is wrong.

And do you now see how you've been used as a fool by whoever's tweet you repeated, who chose to present you with that part but chose to deny you the rest of what Bannon said?

It's not just Trump that has mindless morons spreading hate designed to bring about violent conflict. You have been everything you've claimed to condemn.

 

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

Lets see who he blames if/when he tanks the economy.

Just wondering, like, but who did you blame when the economy crashed during Blair/Brown's stewardship?

I reckon I might be on solid ground in presuming that, IYO, it was little or nothing to do with them despite the positions they held.

And if Trump - or circumstances - is a success with the US economy, will you be as quick to compliment him as you are to suggest here his failure before he's started? 

Perhaps you could include your congratulations to Trump alongside the words you'll be typing about how you'd got him all wrong (see above, again, for the 'useful idiot spreading hate' bit) and it turned out that he wasn't a nazi after all and that none of the dreadful things you were saying were certain had come to pass?

Personally, my biggest worry now is that he might be successful, cos I can't see how a world run by billionaires will be that better world for ordinary people.

[zahidf]

Hey. if he turns out to be a great president, i will put my hands up and admit my error.

I doubt he will be though.

The economic crash was mainly from America and their junk loans. Blair/Brown's policies certainly didnt help. You can argue that Brown as PM stopped it getting worse though when he stopped the banks going under.

 

 

[zahidf]

49 minutes ago, 5co77ie said:

anyone who brings the world out of global economic decline will be hailed a hero, and if anything having a businessman at the helm is probably the best plan - politics isn't needed now it's economics.

Yes. 

 

Looks at Trumps business history and number of bankruptcies.

Ah.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Hey. if he turns out to be a great president, i will put my hands up and admit my error.

I doubt he will be though.

so that would make him like 90% of US presidents then.

Will he be exceptionally shit? Only time will tell.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Yes. 

 

Looks at Trumps business history and number of bankruptcies.

Ah.

I'm well aware that he inherited a fortune and only has a fraction of it left, but using bankruptcies to point it out isn't the best way to do it. If you start lots of businesses some will inevitably fail no matter how good you are.

A much better way is comparing his wealth today with how much wealth he'd have today if he'd invested his inheritance into a stock market tracker.

 

[The Nal]

The "Trump would've made more money playing low risk in the stock market" thing is a bit false really. True, since 1985 ish hes done average, but he had already made his fortune before that. He was never going broke after he built Trump Tower. 

Good article here from the New York Times in 1984.

That Mr. Trump was able to obtain the location, when every real-estate developer in the world would have done just about anything to get it, is testimony to Donald Trump's persistence and to his skills as a negotiator. That he was able to put up a building of this dimension on this site demonstrates his finesse with the zoning code.

[russycarps]

going bankrupt in america is no big deal either. It's generally a sound business decision (which shits on all the creditors, but who cares about them?)

 

[eFestivals]

16 minutes ago, The Nal said:

The "Trump would've made more money playing low risk in the stock market" thing is a bit false really. True, since 1985 ish hes done average, but he had already made his fortune before that. He was never going broke after he built Trump Tower. 

erm ... you do know that he inherited what would be billions in today's terms, don't you?