Trump

Any way here's a sneek peek at the Trump Wall - Interesting engineering.com

Bills already on to it, even Malcolm has changed his tune, amazing what a difference a few days can make. Malcolm's face (and much of the press) has been gold this week. Not sure if it's just his refugees deal, probably more so he saw his whole world crumbling before him.

Watch this weeks media watch, nailed it across the board, all medias played a role

Dunno Sharkman, Donald and brexit have united plebs, academics, anarchists, libertarians, preppers and whole heap of fruitcakes across the spectrum. A lot of good old mums and dads too. Not many want to run the brown people out of town. Most can just see the government selling their children futures for some 1970's idealism

so sypkan , so what is that 70's idealism that these nationalistic parties have embraced and sold to the current generations as the way forward?
Fruitcakes in the majority means ," The Norm" , so what are the people who relegate nationalism to fruitcakes , what are they called leftwing PC's?

Not necessarily a good miracle freeride...but nonetheless a miracle

I don't know Sharkman, shit's all over the place...

I'm one of the fruitcakes

I'm bagging the 1970's idealism, it's the 'establishment' that's pushing that one. I'm on your side....sometimes....

Look at this Sypkan, Helen Razer satirises Aaron Sorkin's 'letter to his daughter', and it's free (just as the Daily Review has been all along - sign up now!)

A letter to my (fictional) daughter about the US election

Choice cuts:

"What died last Tuesday was not so much feminism, a movement that Aaron Sorkin, whose fatty oeuvre is scored with the dull knife of sexism — have you seen The Social Network? Well, no, you haven’t, because it is banned from our home, but, let me tell you about Sorkin’s empowered women: they are all (a) drunk sluts (b) evil sluts or (c) CJ-like nuns who keep themselves nice enough to help men out of a spot of bother, almost always brought about by drunk evil sluts — would not recognise feminism if it shat on his chest. (Actually, mini-Razer, not a bad screenplay idea. Write that down.) The thing that really died last week was liberalism."

"Of course, Aaron Sorkin’s daughter will be fine. Her father, after all, is wealthy enough to donate to the institutional defenders of his Hollywood ideals, the Democratic Party. He made his money selling a perfect screen vision of liberalism that existed for a single moment in a handful of nations. Last week, his stock was up again as he retold that delusion in Vanity Fair. And it is interesting to note, little one, that he wrote, “we fight mostly for equality — not for a guarantee of equal outcomes but for equal opportunities.”"

"You’re a girl, and there’s no protecting you from this sexist world. But just as the “most qualified” candidate was denied her chance to shine by the fear so many have of our gender, she was stripped of it by the world’s diminished faith in liberalism."

"And when they tell us that our ideas are old and impractical, we will remind them that liberalism, even older, hasn’t really turned out so well. And we will promise never again to write sappy letters to our imaginary daughters. That shit is for liberal wimps.

Mummy"

I am not sure I have a side anymore , seems there is an inevitable downward spiral coming , and has just been turbo boosted by Trump and a group of followers who feel they are entitled to a better life , and it can't get any worse?
I personally can't understand what is wrong with the USA economy and their lust for an even better life , does that mean an extra car , new house or..?????
To make the USA great again infers they are a currently in a bad place , but relative to the rest of the world they are ripping!

Wow! You do get good shit don't you?

she's right about abundance, sell abundance... kardashians, Beyoncé, j z, what a lame list

fuck me Katie Perry tweeted ' this is the revolution '....Hollywood? .....Who cares what they think, they're all in on it

Yep, it's dead, corrupted, it was a nice idea but the world has changed

Hey Sharkman I am not so sure anymore myself. I am amazed at the backpedalling by Trump and it is clear he was sensationalising everything freely without having to own his words. Now that he actually landed in the seat he seems to be having a humbling experience, dealing with the realities of the Presidency and the weight of the world on his shoulders. So theres already a massive sign of moderation.

But this is not what anyone wants. Everyone wants change. What is coming through more than ever before the election is that real discussions are taking place on what Americans want for the future, on a national level. More discussion has been sparked than what movements like "Occupy Wall street" could ever have hoped to achieve. Trump has brought confusion to the American identity and the great triumph is that Even Trump himself is realizing the gravity of the situation and reconsidering his oversimplification of the issues.

BUT... I still feel that a Narcissist running a superpower is extremely dangerous territory and so i'm hoping for an alternative party to be formed to challenge Trump's Populism with a fresh and EMPATHETIC alternative to neoliberal capitalism

yocal , I have probably watched and read over 60 hours of the USA election , in the last week......had a flu!

Nearly caught analysis paralysis!!

Confusion over the American Identity , and now the fragmentation of that identity as , the white males and females came out in force and , there number one concern was their white lifestyle and lack of identity in a cosmopolitan USA.

Same here in Australia with Hanson , but when it becomes obvious that nationalism will not deliver what the nationalists want , in more local jobs, higher wages , and a better material life, the shit will start going down as there is very little we can do to stop Globalization , and who will the right blame then?

Sykpan "Malcolm's face (and much of the press) has been gold this week."

Poor old Malcolm. He's spent the last twelve months engineering a refugee solution with the US, and now this happens.

Fella was presented with an awful choice this week: Do I make public my behind the scenes work with the US to show that I've been doing something about Manus Island, or do I heed the US election result and stay mum about it.

In the end he went with the former, held a press conference stating that the US would take all the Manus Island refugees, in spite of the fact they've just held an election where immigration was a deciding factor.

'Twas no surprise to hear the opinion of a US immigration professor on Radio National last night. Asked if the US will honour this deal and take the refugees his answer was blunt.

"No."

& it seems TreasSec will be alumni of a certain investment bank

....

Didn't the libs block the So called Malaysian soloution when Gillard was in? Not that I was necessarily in favour of that either. They would probably love that option now.

Here we go. "It will be so refreshing to have a classy, beautiful, dignified First Lady back in the White House, I'm tired of seeing a Ape in heels."

The Facebook comment was liked and commented on by the Mayor of Clay County in West Virginia who, when asked, said her "comment was not intended to be racist at all."

Of course it wasn't, and anyone who says otherwise is a politically correct, thought policing, liberal brow beater.

Roll on...

Dave is back at his subtle finest...

Dave is back at his subtle finest...

A little Q & A:

Q/ In your view, what were the deciding factors that led American voters to produce the biggest upset in the history of US politics?

A/ Before turning to this question, I think it is important to spend a few moments pondering just what happened on November 8, a date that might turn out to be one of the most important in human history, depending on how we react.

No exaggeration.

The most important news of November 8 was barely noted, a fact of some significance in itself.

On November 8, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) delivered a report at the international conference on climate change in Morocco (COP22) which was called in order to carry forward the Paris agreement of COP21. The WMO reported that the past five years were the hottest on record. It reported rising sea levels, soon to increase as a result of the unexpectedly rapid melting of polar ice, most ominously the huge Antarctic glaciers. Already, Arctic sea ice over the past five years is 28 percent below the average of the previous 29 years, not only raising sea levels, but also reducing the cooling effect of polar ice reflection of solar rays, thereby accelerating the grim effects of global warming. The WMO reported further that temperatures are approaching dangerously close to the goal established by COP21, along with other dire reports and forecasts.

Another event took place on November 8, which also may turn out to be of unusual historical significance for reasons that, once again, were barely noted.

On November 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government -- executive, Congress, the Supreme Court -- in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.

Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The Party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.

Is this an exaggeration? Consider what we have just been witnessing.

During the Republican primaries, every candidate denied that what is happening is happening -- with the exception of the sensible moderates, like Jeb Bush, who said it's all uncertain, but we don't have to do anything because we’re producing more natural gas, thanks to fracking. Or John Kasich, who agreed that global warming is taking place, but added that "we are going to burn [coal] in Ohio and we are not going to apologize for it."

The winning candidate, now the president-elect, calls for rapid increase in use of fossil fuels, including coal; dismantling of regulations; rejection of help to developing countries that are seeking to move to sustainable energy; and in general, racing to the cliff as fast as possible.

Trump has already taken steps to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by placing in charge of the EPA transition a notorious (and proud) climate change denier, Myron Ebell. Trump's top adviser on energy, billionaire oil executive Harold Hamm, announced his expectations, which were predictable: dismantling regulations, tax cuts for the industry (and the wealthy and corporate sector generally), more fossil fuel production, lifting Obama's temporary block on the Dakota Access pipeline. The market reacted quickly. Shares in energy corporations boomed, including the world’s largest coal miner, Peabody Energy, which had filed for bankruptcy, but after Trump's victory, registered a 50 percent gain.

The effects of Republican denialism had already been felt. There had been hopes that the COP21 Paris agreement would lead to a verifiable treaty, but any such thoughts were abandoned because the Republican Congress would not accept any binding commitments, so what emerged was a voluntary agreement, evidently much weaker.

Effects may soon become even more vividly apparent than they already are. In Bangladesh alone, tens of millions are expected to have to flee from low-lying plains in coming years because of sea level rise and more severe weather, creating a migrant crisis that will make today’s pale in significance. With considerable justice, Bangladesh's leading climate scientist says that "These migrants should have the right to move to the countries from which all these greenhouse gases are coming. Millions should be able to go to the United States." And to the other rich countries that have grown wealthy while bringing about a new geological era, the Anthropocene, marked by radical human transformation of the environment. These catastrophic consequences can only increase, not just in Bangladesh, but in all of South Asia as temperatures, already intolerable for the poor, inexorably rise and the Himalayan glaciers melt, threatening the entire water supply. Already in India, some 300 million people are reported to lack adequate drinking water. And the effects will reach far beyond.

It is hard to find words to capture the fact that humans are facing the most important question in their history -- whether organized human life will survive in anything like the form we know -- and are answering it by accelerating the race to disaster.

Similar observations hold for the other huge issue concerning human survival: the threat of nuclear destruction, which has been looming over our heads for 70 years and is now increasing.

It is no less difficult to find words to capture the utterly astonishing fact that in all of the massive coverage of the electoral extravaganza, none of this receives more than passing mention. At least I am at a loss to find appropriate words.

Turning finally to the question raised, to be precise, it appears that Clinton received a slight majority of the vote. The apparent decisive victory has to do with curious features of American politics: among other factors, the Electoral College residue of the founding of the country as an alliance of separate states; the winner-take-all system in each state; the arrangement of congressional districts (sometimes by gerrymandering) to provide greater weight to rural votes (in past elections, and probably this one too, Democrats have had a comfortable margin of victory in the popular vote for the House, but hold a minority of seats); the very high rate of abstention (usually close to half in presidential elections, this one included). Of some significance for the future is the fact that in the age 18-25 range, Clinton won handily, and Sanders had an even higher level of support. How much this matters depends on what kind of future humanity will face.

According to current information, Trump broke all records in the support he received from white voters, working class and lower middle class, particularly in the $50,000 to $90,000 income range, rural and suburban, primarily those without college education. These groups share the anger throughout the West at the centrist establishment, revealed as well in the unanticipated Brexit vote and the collapse of centrist parties in continental Europe. [Many of] the angry and disaffected are victims of the neoliberal policies of the past generation, the policies described in congressional testimony by Fed chair Alan Greenspan -- "St. Alan," as he was called reverentially by the economics profession and other admirers until the miraculous economy he was supervising crashed in 2007-2008, threatening to bring the whole world economy down with it. As Greenspan explained during his glory days, his successes in economic management were based substantially on "growing worker insecurity." Intimidated working people would not ask for higher wages, benefits and security, but would be satisfied with the stagnating wages and reduced benefits that signal a healthy economy by neoliberal standards.

Working people, who have been the subjects of these experiments in economic theory, are not particularly happy about the outcome. They are not, for example, overjoyed at the fact that in 2007, at the peak of the neoliberal miracle, real wages for nonsupervisory workers were lower than they had been years earlier, or that real wages for male workers are about at 1960s levels while spectacular gains have gone to the pockets of a very few at the top, disproportionately a fraction of 1%. Not the result of market forces, achievement or merit, but rather of definite policy decisions, matters reviewed carefully by economist Dean Baker in recently published work.

The fate of the minimum wage illustrates what has been happening. Through the periods of high and egalitarian growth in the '50s and '60s, the minimum wage -- which sets a floor for other wages -- tracked productivity. That ended with the onset of neoliberal doctrine. Since then, the minimum wage has stagnated (in real value). Had it continued as before, it would probably be close to $20 per hour. Today, it is considered a political revolution to raise it to $15.

With all the talk of near-full employment today, labor force participation remains below the earlier norm. And for working people, there is a great difference between a steady job in manufacturing with union wages and benefits, as in earlier years, and a temporary job with little security in some service profession. Apart from wages, benefits and security, there is a loss of dignity, of hope for the future, of a sense that this is a world in which I belong and play a worthwhile role.

The impact is captured well in Arlie Hochschild's sensitive and illuminating portrayal of a Trump stronghold in Louisiana, where she lived and worked for many years. She uses the image of a line in which residents are standing, expecting to move forward steadily as they work hard and keep to all the conventional values. But their position in the line has stalled. Ahead of them, they see people leaping forward, but that does not cause much distress, because it is "the American way" for (alleged) merit to be rewarded. What does cause real distress is what is happening behind them. They believe that "undeserving people" who do not "follow the rules" are being moved in front of them by federal government programs they erroneously see as designed to benefit African-Americans, immigrants and others they often regard with contempt. All of this is exacerbated by [Ronald] Reagan's racist fabrications about "welfare queens" (by implication Black) stealing white people's hard-earned money and other fantasies.

Sometimes failure to explain, itself a form of contempt, plays a role in fostering hatred of government. I once met a house painter in Boston who had turned bitterly against the "evil" government after a Washington bureaucrat who knew nothing about painting organized a meeting of painting contractors to inform them that they could no longer use lead paint -- "the only kind that works" -- as they all knew, but the suit didn't understand. That destroyed his small business, compelling him to paint houses on his own with substandard stuff forced on him by government elites.

Sometimes there are also some real reasons for these attitudes toward government bureaucracies. Hochschild describes a man whose family and friends are suffering bitterly from the lethal effects of chemical pollution but who despises the government and the "liberal elites," because for him, the EPA means some ignorant guy who tells him he can't fish, but does nothing about the chemical plants.

These are just samples of the real lives of Trump supporters, who are led to believe that Trump will do something to remedy their plight, though the merest look at his fiscal and other proposals demonstrates the opposite -- posing a task for activists who hope to fend off the worst and to advance desperately needed changes.

Exit polls reveal that the passionate support for Trump was inspired primarily by the belief that he represented change, while Clinton was perceived as the candidate who would perpetuate their distress. The "change" that Trump is likely to bring will be harmful or worse, but it is understandable that the consequences are not clear to isolated people in an atomized society lacking the kinds of associations (like unions) that can educate and organize. That is a crucial difference between today's despair and the generally hopeful attitudes of many working people under much greater economic duress during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

There are other factors in Trump's success. Comparative studies show that doctrines of white supremacy have had an even more powerful grip on American culture than in South Africa, and it's no secret that the white population is declining. In a decade or two, whites are projected to be a minority of the work force, and not too much later, a minority of the population. The traditional conservative culture is also perceived as under attack by the successes of identity politics, regarded as the province of elites who have only contempt for the ''hard-working, patriotic, church-going [white] Americans with real family values'' who see their familiar country as disappearing before their eyes.

One of the difficulties in raising public concern over the very severe threats of global warming is that 40 percent of the US population does not see why it is a problem, since Christ is returning in a few decades. About the same percentage believe that the world was created a few thousand years ago. If science conflicts with the Bible, so much the worse for science. It would be hard to find an analogue in other societies.

The Democratic Party abandoned any real concern for working people by the 1970s, and they have therefore been drawn to the ranks of their bitter class enemies, who at least pretend to speak their language -- Reagan's folksy style of making little jokes while eating jelly beans, George W. Bush's carefully cultivated image of a regular guy you could meet in a bar who loved to cut brush on the ranch in 100-degree heat and his probably faked mispronunciations (it's unlikely that he talked like that at Yale), and now Trump, who gives voice to people with legitimate grievances -- people who have lost not just jobs, but also a sense of personal self-worth -- and who rails against the government that they perceive as having undermined their lives (not without reason).

One of the great achievements of the doctrinal system has been to divert anger from the corporate sector to the government that implements the programs that the corporate sector designs, such as the highly protectionist corporate/investor rights agreements that are uniformly mis-described as "free trade agreements" in the media and commentary. With all its flaws, the government is, to some extent, under popular influence and control, unlike the corporate sector. It is highly advantageous for the business world to foster hatred for pointy-headed government bureaucrats and to drive out of people's minds the subversive idea that the government might become an instrument of popular will, a government of, by and for the people.

Cup of tea and a biscuit.

Q/ Is Trump representing a new movement in American politics, or was the outcome of this election primarily a rejection of Hillary Clinton by voters who hate the Clintons and are fed-up with "politics as usual?"

A/ It's by no means new. Both political parties have moved to the right during the neoliberal period. Today's New Democrats are pretty much what used to be called "moderate Republicans." The "political revolution" that Bernie Sanders called for, rightly, would not have greatly surprised Dwight Eisenhower. The Republicans have moved so far toward a dedication to the wealthy and the corporate sector that they cannot hope to get votes on their actual programs, and have turned to mobilizing sectors of the population that have always been there, but not as an organized coalitional political force: evangelicals, nativists, racists and the victims of the forms of globalization designed to set working people around the world in competition with one another while protecting the privileged and undermining the legal and other measures that provided working people with some protection, and with ways to influence decision-making in the closely linked public and private sectors, notably with effective labor unions.

The consequences have been evident in recent Republican primaries. Every candidate that has emerged from the base -- such as [Michele] Bachmann, [Herman] Cain or [Rick] Santorum -- has been so extreme that the Republican establishment had to use its ample resources to beat them down. The difference in 2016 is that the establishment failed, much to its chagrin, as we have seen.

Deservedly or not, Clinton represented the policies that were feared and hated, while Trump was seen as the symbol of "change" -- change of what kind requires a careful look at his actual proposals, something largely missing in what reached the public. The campaign itself was remarkable in its avoidance of issues, and media commentary generally complied, keeping to the concept that true "objectivity" means reporting accurately what is "within the beltway," but not venturing beyond.

Q/ Trump said following the outcome of the election that he "will represent all Americans." How is he going to do that when the nation is so divided and he has already expressed deep hatred for many groups in the United States, including women and minorities? Do you see any resemblance between Brexit and Donald Trump's victory?

A/ There are definite similarities to Brexit, and also to the rise of the ultranationalist far-right parties in Europe -- whose leaders were quick to congratulate Trump on his victory, perceiving him as one of their own: [Nigel] Farage, [Marine] Le Pen, [Viktor] Orban and others like them. And these developments are quite frightening. A look at the polls in Austria and Germany -- Austria and Germany -- cannot fail to evoke unpleasant memories for those familiar with the 1930s, even more so for those who watched directly, as I did as a child. I can still recall listening to Hitler's speeches, not understanding the words, though the tone and audience reaction were chilling enough. The first article that I remember writing was in February 1939, after the fall of Barcelona, on the seemingly inexorable spread of the fascist plague. And by strange coincidence, it was from Barcelona that my wife and I watched the results of the 2016 US presidential election unfold.

As to how Trump will handle what he has brought forth -- not created, but brought forth -- we cannot say. Perhaps his most striking characteristic is unpredictability. A lot will depend on the reactions of those appalled by his performance and the visions he has projected, such as they are.

Q/ Trump has no identifiable political ideology guiding his stance on economic, social and political issues, yet there are clear authoritarian tendencies in his behavior. Therefore, do you find any validity behind the claims that Trump may represent the emergence of "fascism with a friendly face?" in the United States?

A/ For many years, I have been writing and speaking about the danger of the rise of an honest and charismatic ideologue in the United States, someone who could exploit the fear and anger that has long been boiling in much of the society, and who could direct it away from the actual agents of malaise to vulnerable targets. That could indeed lead to what sociologist Bertram Gross called "friendly fascism" in a perceptive study 35 years ago. But that requires an honest ideologue, a Hitler type, not someone whose only detectable ideology is Me. The dangers, however, have been real for many years, perhaps even more so in the light of the forces that Trump has unleashed.

Q/ With the Republicans in the White House, but also controlling both houses and the future shape of the Supreme Court, what will the US look like for at least the next four years?

A/ A good deal depends on his appointments and circle of advisers. Early indications are unattractive, to put it mildly.

The Supreme Court will be in the hands of reactionaries for many years, with predictable consequences. If Trump follows through on his Paul Ryan-style fiscal programs, there will be huge benefits for the very rich -- estimated by the Tax Policy Center as a tax cut of over 14 percent for the top 0.1 percent and a substantial cut more generally at the upper end of the income scale, but with virtually no tax relief for others, who will also face major new burdens. The respected economics correspondent of the Financial Times, Martin Wolf, writes that, "The tax proposals would shower huge benefits on already rich Americans such as Mr Trump," while leaving others in the lurch, including, of course, his constituency. The immediate reaction of the business world reveals that Big Pharma, Wall Street, the military industry, energy industries and other such wonderful institutions expect a very bright future.

One positive development might be the infrastructure program that Trump has promised while (along with much reporting and commentary) concealing the fact that it is essentially the Obama stimulus program that would have been of great benefit to the economy and to the society generally, but was killed by the Republican Congress on the pretext that it would explode the deficit. While that charge was spurious at the time, given the very low interest rates, it holds in spades for Trump's program, now accompanied by radical tax cuts for the rich and corporate sector and increased Pentagon spending.

There is, however, an escape, provided by Dick Cheney when he explained to Bush's Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill that "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter" -- meaning deficits that we Republicans create in order to gain popular support, leaving it to someone else, preferably Democrats, to somehow clean up the mess. The technique might work, for a while at least.

There are also many questions about foreign policy consequences, mostly unanswered.

Q/ There is mutual admiration between Trump and Putin. How likely is it therefore that we may see a new era in US-Russia relations?

A/ One hopeful prospect is that there might be reduction of the very dangerous and mounting tensions at the Russian border: note "the Russian border," not the Mexican border. Thereby lies a tale that we cannot go into here. It is also possible that Europe might distance itself from Trump's America, as already suggested by [German] Chancellor [Angela] Merkel and other European leaders -- and from the British voice of American power, after Brexit. That might possibly lead to European efforts to defuse the tensions, and perhaps even efforts to move towards something like Mikhail Gorbachev's vision of an integrated Eurasian security system without military alliances, rejected by the US in favor of NATO expansion, a vision revived recently by Putin, whether seriously or not, we do not know, since the gesture was dismissed.

Q/ Is US foreign policy under a Trump administration likely to be more or less militaristic than what we have seen under the Obama administration, or even the George W. Bush administration?

A/ I don't think one can answer with any confidence. Trump is too unpredictable. There are too many open questions. What we can say is that popular mobilization and activism, properly organized and conducted, can make a large difference.

And we should bear in mind that the stakes are very large.

blindboy, the electoral vote doesn't exist to change the will of the people. 60 million voted for trump.

....its over.

Fark TT, TL:DR.

Maybe I'll get back to it.

Here is a snapshot of what I like to call rational economics. This is what should replace neoliberal economics. Much of this is what used to be called economics, but then arsehats like Maggie Thatcher and Ronald Reagan took us down the path of very little return except for the 1%.

This is what I would vote for, see bullet points if it's TLDR for you;

http://johnmenadue.com/blog/?p=8333

John Menadue is a gem.

By the way Stu, read Helen Razer's stuff for a long time now. She is quite the learned curmudgeon, more learned than me, but probably less curmudgeon. Loved that piece.

Happyass is right blindboy. If ever the electoral college would turn over from the vote, it would have been with Al Gore and George W.

What a fark up for the world that was. A batch of 'hanging chads' bullshit in Florida and a rigged court system and the western world is set on its edge with the dumbest President ever, even compared to Ronald Reagan. So much of this flows from that. Funny to think about, but not so much in a ha ha way.

Don't get too cocky, we had Tony Abbott. Quite possibly as dumb as George Bush, just in different ways.

Sigh, TL:DR is part of the problem. Where's me dank meme at?

As for the 'hanging chads' fiasco, I think I posted something in What's What? by Greg Palast who investigated that dodgy election for The Guardian, The Observer, and the BBC (when they weren't so 'compromised'), as well as this one! CROSS-CHECK! Check THAT out!

blindboy, it hasn't escaped my attention. the will of the people is not described by the popular vote, it is described by the electoral college. the system is designed that way. there can be NO sore losers out of this, both parties know how the system works.

back to the 19th. i find it hard to believe that republican electors will change their vote to Clinton. why would they do this?

maybe so BB, but trump isnt as dumb as his twitter posts would have you otherwise believe. already hes tempering his views. also remember for electors to flip means political suicide so it would have to be something very serious.

There was undoubtedly a lot of support for Trump. But in contrast to the ubiquitous line at the moment that we all overlooked a grass-roots campaign based on a deep well of discontent that was right under our noses, there is this edifying article from Sue Halpern.

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/11/11/facebook-twitter-trump-how-inter...

It points out that 39 percent of Trump's Twitter followers were not real people but software-generated "bots" creating and endorsing politically expedient lines. Many of them with conveniently stereotypical Hispanic names too.

It's clear that in the era of big data, sophisticated algorithms, "social" media and obsessive internet use, sandwich boards and flyers are not what win elections.

-

'After studying four million election-related tweets created between September 16 and October 21, the University of Southern California computer science professor, Emilio Ferrara, and his colleagues, determined that one in five were generated by bots. And once they were, they were retweeted again and again by actual humans, who sent them ricocheting around the web, especially those that were antagonistic; in earlier work, Ferrara’s group found that negative tweets traveled 2.5 times faster than positive ones. “As a result, [the bots] were able to build significant influence, collecting large numbers of followers and having their tweets retweeted by thousands of humans,” and leading to the “spreading of content that is often defamatory or based on unsupported or even false, claims.” Ferrara further noted that, “previous studies showed that this systematic bias alters public perception. Specifically, it creates the false impression that there is grassroots, positive, sustained support for a certain candidate.”'

-

With both houses in hand and the supreme court soon to follow, it seems possible that without VERY strong public resistance he may be able to actually live up to his rhetoric and overturn abortion laws, discriminate against Muslims, loosen restrictions on torture, deport millions of undocumented migrants and nix any climate change obligations.

Not to sound too alarmist about it, but if we don't take the threat posed by this demagogue seriously, what does it take for us to do something?

When the next terrorist attack happens in America - and it will - can we expect him to suddenly become a level-headed pragmatic leader able diffuse the situation and implement a long-term strategy for peace and de-radicalisation?

Or will he keep his promise to make the "sand glow" in the middle east and sow the seeds of discontent for another generation?

And on that very note, I notice that I now have to verify that I'm not a bot before posting.

I guess there's no chance of bots launching some pro-SUP campaign on these forums, then. Which is comforting.

Rooftop - Q :Why would terrorists attack USA in the first place ?

A : Because the clowns running the show up till now have treated rest of the world with utter contempt. Killing thousands upon thousands of people in foreign countries and a fair few thousand of their own citizens in pointless wars based on making those in charge wealthier.

And you're happy to continue in this vein because the alternative is not clearly scripted in front of you.

Strange how many people claim that those who voted for Trump did so out of small minded fear whilst they themselves run around drumming up hysteria .

The only choice available to run the henhouse was between a fox that has killed and continues to kill the chickens and a big, mean dog that may or may not kill the chickens.

And you're saying you'd have voted for the fox ?

I thought Trump said something along the lines of "America stops needing to be the police of the world"?

Edit: he said “We are going to have to stop being the policemen of the world,” Trump said in September. In a different interview, Trump said, “Let Syria and ISIS fight. Why do we care? Let ISIS and Syria fight. And let Russia, they’re in Syria already, let them fight ISIS.”

While Hillary sure aint no peace lover.

From what I've read there is much more chance of America keeping out of these conflicts under Trump than Clinton.

EDIT AGAIN: ha ha yeah i forgot about the bomb the shit out of ISIS thing, contradicting bastard isn't he.

@Stunet in reply to yesterday basically what Sypkan said.

Blowin, if you think he only may or may not go on the attack you're kidding yourself or you didn't listen to his campaign speeches. It was part of his platform to bomb the shit out of isis (including their wives and children).

The complete retrospective rewriting of this guys campaign messages by the media, politicians looking to further their own self interest and now being regurgitated by some here is bizarre. Some of messages were reasonable, no question, many were outright despicable and it was based on a platform of undermining democracy (it's rigged against us and I won't accept the result) or outright intimidation (assassinating her is the only way to save the court) as well as blatant lies. That and many other things make him very different from any other candidate before and if you want to ignore all that, that's fine but it doesn't make you prescient or some kind of free thinker.

We have no idea what he will do because he changes position all the time. That in itself is a bad thing. But we do know that he claims to want to go to war and keep up America's fighting going in the middle east.

I know you love to be a contrarian when the left gets high and mighty but stop kidding yourself that there aren't many legitimate reasons to think this guy is dangerous and to be angry about his election (and I'm speaking about friends and family over there who's life suddenly got more complicated).

And yeah Hilary is definitely hawkish and would also be happy to go to war.

Isis are already being bombed, stop talking garbage

undermine the democracy?

dangerous?

your talking about the wrong person. one of them 'might' be dangerous, the other is definitely dangerous, and has proved it time and time again.

the establishment's ideology is outdated and corrupted. when you're expending so much energy around the world to maintain 'peace', it's time to reassess long held beliefs, which is what razor (a proud lefty feminist) was on about

https://newmatilda.com/2016/11/05/more-explosive-hillary-clinton-revelat...

Better being a Libtarded than a Fucktarded poindexter

Sypkan, come on mate don't deliberately ignore my point. By undermining democracy I'm talking about his stated unwillingness to accept the result unless he won. About his twice made suggestions that assassinating Hilary would be the way to respond to the outcome of losing. I'm talking about his calls for trump voters to act as vigilantes and "monitor" voter fraud.

All that stuff that undermines the democratic process.

Yeah Hilary is a foreign policy hawk, I agree with that and I said so. she would have continued America's crappy war path. But let's not pretend the alternative is benign. He campaigned on a platform counter to the basic ideals of what we accept as democracy. And he said enough war mongering things for any observer to think he's no different on the foreign policy front.

If we have to accept that we don't know what he'll do or that he 'might' not want to go to war, why is it more likely that he would back away from his hawkish statements than his isolationist ones? After all we have no way of knowing.

I think many of you are latching onto what you hope will happen and pinning it as a greater possibility.

you do know hilary funded professional protestors to stir up trump rallies?

you have seen who is not accepting the election in the streets?

bomb the fuck oit of ISIS versus bomb the fuck out of Russia

granted the morals are all over the place, it's an easy choice for me

"All that stuff that undermines the democratic process", you talking about the democratic process to exclude Bernie sanders? Operation veritas? Turkeys post election expose of GOP dead voters, or was it dem dead voters?

Hillary outright says she will attack Iran, says she will attack Russia and has been directly involved in the Middle East mess but trumps gonna "bomb the shit out of Isis" which Obama has been doing for however long and trumps a warmonger.

Leftist logic

Sypkan, I don't see how you can hold her responsible for the actions of her supporters when she has said in her concession speech that everyone needs to accept the result and get behind trump. Trump declined to be prepared to do that if he lost.

But also, the right to protest is enshrined. You're not saying they shouldn't be allowed to do that are you?

I support the right to protest just not the right to assassinate or insight the assassination of a political opponent. Easy choice for me. ;-)

As for the war part, not an easy choice for me because I'd rather they didn't fight anyone. Neither of them offer a viable foreign policy alternative that I particularly agree with. So I choose not to separate them on that axis. They're both as bad as each other because they're both as likely to go to war. Trump said as much in the campaign so we're now left to hope that the position he drops on that issue is the ongoing war.

Taking that out of it leaves you with all his other bogus crap. I'm not going to pretend that shit was never said or pretend that a conciliatory speech wipes it clean. Anti-establishment is one thing but surely we've got enough nous to recognise the first anti-establishment fella isn't necessarily worth jumping behind.

Hilary attack Iran?

nope.

The most dangerous campaign rhetoric from Trump is to trash the Iran nuclear deal....now that really would throw the cat amongst the pigeons.

Nah, good on the protestors, get amongst it, I just don't know what they're protesting about. Pity we can't harness that energy to actually do something. It's like the Sydney lock out protests, good on ya,...but really? This is what got you off the couch?

Trump's a business man, he delays his final position as long as he can, that's his way to 'seal the deal'. it drives people nuts, especially media. But he would have accepted it, he realty is just playing people, yep he's a conman.

This endless war thing is part of a bigger philosophy benski, it's not a bad philosophy, just a bit worn out.

Agree freeride, Iran is a really scary proposition with trump, though that deal does seem to be turning to shit already

The Roof is on fire!!

quick history lesson guys.

Last Thursday the EU called an urgent meeting to discuss how the EU would/could work with Trump. the UK laughed and said , no way , this is the new Brexit way ...yewwwww

24 hrs later there is a full blown Diplomatic Crisis between UK & USA , as trump is now backing Assad/Russians in Syria , not the Rebels , the UK/EU have been calling for Assad to be tried for war crimes against his own people as he has killed 400000 civilians , but now USA/Russia/Syria VS Europe.

Australia also does not support assad/Syria , as does the USA now , so the future is very uncertain , as we now have Trump who will eventually fail as he cannot and does not possess the political smarts of how not to piss everybody off , and at least keep his core supporters onside!

From what I can tell, they're protesting his character more than his policies but there's also his policy element too.

It's the fact that he bragged about committing sexual assault and then when women came out and said, he did that to me. His response was, pfffft I'd never touch her she's not hot enough. That's of course after boasting about going backstage during Miss universe contests while the girls were all naked so he could cop an eyeful.

It's the fact that he said openly racist things, now the anti-PC brigade might not like being told this but saying the Mexicans in our country are rapists and drug dealers, is racist. Saying a judge is biased against him because her parents are Mexican, is racist. I'm not trying to shame people into silence here, shut down debate or whatever else the left get accused of when calling out bullshit comments, but those things are the definition of racism (or bigotry if you want to play the, 'hurr durr Mexican isn't a race it's a country' card).

It's the fact that he mocked a fella with a disability by putting on the school yard spazzo routine.

It's all of that stuff. Like it or not he said it all, and from what I can gather the lefties protesting are trying to make sure people don't forget that because it affects a lot of people. I don't think they give two hoots about the TPP or an alliance with Russia. My friends who've I've been chatting with are far from hard core lefties, far from it, and they are horrified at all that stuff.

A lot of Americans put the president up on a pedestal of higher respect than we do with our pollies here. Not everyone does (I heard a few "I don't accept a n*gger as president" when I lived there in the Obama years) and plenty lampooned George W when he was boss, but plenty more hold up the prez as someone to admire. An office to be held by someone of good personal character. In the eyes of many that can't be said of this bloke, it probably can't be said of most of them but we know for sure it can't be said of this bloke.

It's not a protest that Hilary is better or a perfect candidate, it's that he's not fit for the office.

This is a joke but seth meyers put it well I reckon, with just the teeniest hint of smug...a lot of smug