Little John wrote:But, what I am saying is this was inevitable.
Yes, that thought went through my head this morning when I was out with the dog. We are talking about America, after all. Politics and corporatism are so similar that, just as you might have 15 brands of orange juice owned by one company, so politics is going to be a non-choice and is inevitably going to result in such a ridiculous election.
Venn diagrams of presidencies, from Reagan onwards, including Trump's and (H) Clinton's, would largely overlap.
In four years Michelle will go against him and win.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
He is a populist. But he is still firmly a member of the 0.001% since birth. He has been systematically tapping in to lower income resentment but he is not remotely interested in making the world a better place for anybody other than Donald Trump and his immediate family.
He is more likely to send in a hit squad to put an anti tank shell through the Ecuadorian front window.
I give it two years max before the violence on the streets exceeds anything we have seen in a century.
I don't think you can call Obama's youth as being a one percenter. His wealth comes from book sales after he got into Chicago politics. His is more the story of affirmative action giving blacks the opportunity to move up as is Michelle's.
I'm also not as cynical about his motives. I think he means well and wanted to improve the average guys lot, but like most liberals doesn't understand that the average guy also has to pay the taxes that support government programs, and benefits can only be calculated after the cost of the taxes and losses due to bureaucratic inefficiency have been deducted.
This "inevitable" tag is false. trump is there only because of the voting system in the US. I heard on radio4 this morning that Clinton had more popular votes than trump, but because of the system (like parliamentary system in the UK) trump gets it. That means in the end everyone gets it, unless you are a trump.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
If Trump did nothing else except limit lobbying and payments for campaign funds, and remove financial secrecy then the world might cease to get worse for the rest of us. Or it could be way too late..
woodburner wrote:This "inevitable" tag is false. trump is there only because of the voting system in the US. I heard on radio4 this morning that Clinton had more popular votes than trump, but because of the system (like parliamentary system in the UK) trump gets it. That means in the end everyone gets it, unless you are a trump.
I wouldn't pay much attention to the popular vote. How many republicans in CA didn't bother to vote as they know they'd never win?
woodburner wrote:This "inevitable" tag is false. trump is there only because of the voting system in the US. I heard on radio4 this morning that Clinton had more popular votes than trump, but because of the system (like parliamentary system in the UK) trump gets it. That means in the end everyone gets it, unless you are a trump.
I wouldn't pay much attention to the popular vote. How many republicans in CA didn't bother to vote as they know they'd never win?
The margin between them is just 200,000 votes out of 59 million each. In some big states that Hillary won her margin is over a million votes. Trump had narrower victories where he won but still gets all the electoral votes in those states. The losing side always whines about the system but will be just fine with it the next time it gives them a win.
I experience pleasure and pains, and pursue goals in service of them, so I cannot reasonably deny the right of other sentient agents to do the same - Steven Pinker
woodburner wrote:This "inevitable" tag is false. trump is there only because of the voting system in the US. I heard on radio4 this morning that Clinton had more popular votes than trump, but because of the system (like parliamentary system in the UK) trump gets it. That means in the end everyone gets it, unless you are a trump.
I wouldn't pay much attention to the popular vote. How many republicans in CA didn't bother to vote as they know they'd never win?
UndercoverElephant wrote:So it is Trump+1 and I wake up to headlines of "Anti-Trump protests sweep US cities: burning effigies and chants of 'he's not my President'".
It really is Brexit all over again. These are the direct US equivalent of the Remainers who can't accept the result of the referendum.
I think it's a result of the increasingly partisan nature of American politics- there would have been plenty of angry people upset at the direction of their country had Clinton been voted in. And protests are a good way of letting out all the anger.
woodburner wrote:This "inevitable" tag is false. trump is there only because of the voting system in the US. I heard on radio4 this morning that Clinton had more popular votes than trump, but because of the system (like parliamentary system in the UK) trump gets it. That means in the end everyone gets it, unless you are a trump.
I wouldn't pay much attention to the popular vote. How many republicans in CA didn't bother to vote as they know they'd never win?
Could the same be said of Democrats in Texas?
For sure, it's unreliable in both directions but you absolutely can't assume it cancels out exactly. The point is people take the voting system into account when they vote, change the system and you'd get different votes.
clv101 wrote:
I wouldn't pay much attention to the popular vote. How many republicans in CA didn't bother to vote as they know they'd never win?
Could the same be said of Democrats in Texas?
For sure, it's unreliable in both directions but you absolutely can't assume it cancels out exactly. The point is people take the voting system into account when they vote, change the system and you'd get different votes.
People don't do any such thing for the most part when it comes to voting.. They do what they do, because they do. To take the voting system into account they would have to cooperate, and as it's a secret ballot, treat isn't going to happen.
To become an extremist, hang around with people you agree with. Cass Sunstein
John Steppling wrote: This election result was also a reaction to the smug elitism and myopic self interests of the white liberal class. Woman over 45 voted Trump. Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Pennsylvania and Florida — all Obama states, voted Trump. Non college educated white men voted overwhelmingly for Trump. The white working class, which is mostly NOT working, have been hit as hard by neo liberal economic policies and by trade deals like TPP and TTIP. And by NAFTA, ushered in, remember, by Bill Clinton. The utter indifference of the DNC to the suffering of vast chunks of the U.S., and the indifference of the smug supporters of Hillary who stigmatized and tried to shame third party candidates and those voting for them, came back to haunt them. They couldn’t imagine why everyone didn’t support their privilege. The logic of lesser evilism became an accusatory intolerance with opinion differing from their own. That they seemed more concerned with Trump’s pussy remarks than with Clinton’s cackling at her orchestrated assassination of Qadaffi, or her planned coup in Honduras, or the CIA led fascist coup in Ukraine began to be noticed. Many people who voted for Trump did so not because they like Trump, but because they f***ing hated the privileged white bourgeoisie that was constantly scolding them and ridiculing them. In a sense this mirrored the Brexit vote. And it is worth noting Bill Clinton’s recent remarks about Jeremy Corbyn (“a person off the streets” “maddest person in the room.”).
A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.
woodburner wrote:People don't do any such thing for the most part when it comes to voting...
Well, some do. I personally know people who don't bother voting because they live in a very safe seat.
The point is you can't read much into the US popular vote. If the election were decided on the popular vote, the number of votes would certainly be different.
The statement that Clinton won the popular vote doesn't mean anything, especially as it was so very close.
Regarding the popular vote - lets be frank... the country is split down the middle but the map shows that whilst Clinton may have the big cities the rest of the country is a sea of red.
The US system is what it is. I am sure if Trump had (just) won the popular vote but Clinton had won the electoral college the Democrats wouldn't be moaning. Thats politics.
Peace always has been and always will be an intermittent flash of light in a dark history of warfare, violence, and destruction
Lord Beria3 wrote:Regarding the popular vote - lets be frank... the country is split down the middle but the map shows that whilst Clinton may have the big cities the rest of the country is a sea of red.
