Trump will win!

Discussions
User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Nov 26, 2016 11:00 pm

TJrandom wrote:Just for the record, despite what I wrote above, I do believe that the Electoral College should faithfully represent the popular vote in each of their respective states. To do otherwise, unless the wining candidate proved to be a lying, misogynistic, racist, BSer, would run counter to the wishes of the good people of the US. :)

As for the recount, I see it as only good, given that the machines can be hacked. In fact, IMO, there should be routine recounts/audits and the machines should be standardised and produce a log/paper proof to facilitate recounts.
There is an ingenious effort afoot to deal with the electoral college. It would create a compact between states - all that is needed in theory is enough states to yield an electoral college majority - that would legally bind electors from all member states to cast their votes for whichever candidate wins the popular vote. If states with 270 electoral votes agreed (so far states with 165 votes have done so), the popular vote winner would be assured an electoral college majority. This method would not require a constitutional amendment to have election results based on popular vote.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:08 am

Not sure. Not The Guardian but I wrote the sentence you quoted just above - noting that if the shoe were on the other foot, Trump would be unleashing holy hell and not an orderly procedure to recount the ballots.
Image

ok got it... :shock:

finally---

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Nov 27, 2016 1:12 am

LOL
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

psychiatry is a scam
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1647
Joined: Mon Feb 04, 2013 12:23 am
Custom Title: eugenics never stopped

Re: Trump will win!

Post by psychiatry is a scam » Sun Nov 27, 2016 4:33 am

TJrandom wrote:
psychiatry is a scam wrote:the dominant majorityminority fought for equal rights . laws were passed to help them get what they want .
they want everything whites had - homes , schools , jobs , children , ---

because of these non-discrimination laws ; if you are white and are not happy with them taking everything from you having equality you are now a stupid racist Neanderthal headed for extinction - a criminal - and regrettably these people can only think like criminals .
they see no legal way to keep regain what they had .
keep what regain the presumed racial superiority that they had :burn:
FIFY
so everything else is true

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Sun Nov 27, 2016 5:34 pm

Statmec:
You quoted that from CNN, right? That was Clinton's team, not the people behind Stein,
Of course, i am quoting the Clinton's team - it had already declared they would join the recount when i wrote my post - because basically who cares about Stein and the silly arguments she put forward.
My question was concerning the Clinton's team: would they have dared to endorse this silly recount without the pop vote, given what they was saying before the elections about "not accepting the results"?

Anyway, joining Stein is a mistake.
Simple point: more people who live in the US and voted, voted for Clinton than Trump.
You can see as you want to see it.
Hence my question: would you see it that way had Texas been the most populated States, giving whoever wins that States a tremendous lead in pop vote? Everything has already been said on that subject.
But even if we take your PoV, it cannot be said that this lead is illustrative to what happened in the 50 states, except maybe the great divide between California and the rest of the country.
Her historical lead is concentrated in One or two States. It is as much as a fact than the fact she won the pop vote by over 2 millions votes (actually she has + 2.220.000 and it might climb still).
She won the Non-Swing States by over 3.000.000 and lost the Swing States by 1.000.000.

Don't get me wrong. I am very happy about the result in California and i see in it a real hope for the future. Its population is young, it has a important ethnic diversity. It is the opposite of the Wasp America. In fact, it is the only State of America i visited deeply when i was young.
And you might have guessed from where i live that i quite like Hispanic environment.
The State is getting more democrat each year, which is of course a great thing as is its rejection of Trump! It is just a bit ahead of its time.
It does represent the future, but still not the present.
It is also the richest State of America and has no idea of some issues affecting other States. Hasn't it like the 6th of 7th most powerful economy in the world?

Just as an additional information: Germany is the least represented State in the European Parliament, although it has the most representatives (99). Each representative represent 730.000 German citizens, while the Island of Malta has 6, just like the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg...Each representative represent 70.000 citizens. Quite unfair, but paradoxically, it is the most "democratic" option. Had the demographic and economic realities been observed, The EU would have been an Erzats of the "Greater Germany", even more now that Great Britain might leave it. And in fine, such an Union would have not worked.
Nor did most of Trump's voters likely "succumb to populism," whatever that means.
Seriously? Is this new "political concept" not used in the USA?
Well i could write a long post explaining it, but it is useless as Trump's campaign has been the perfect example of what "Populism" means.
Calling to the so called "heart of the people" - without much thought of what the people is - "populists" propose an idealized version of the people. A populist is "outside" the political system - he might be a politician but outside the political game - which allows him not to follow the rules of the game. He present himself as the champion of the people opposing the existing "Elite", described as insensitive to the "real problem" of the people, mostly corrupted. A populist leads a "negative campaign", he does not propose anything, but gathered his supports from being "against".

Of of the most famous historical example was Pierre Poujade - a french Unionist and politician - who you probably don't know but gave its name to the concept of "Poujadism".

Twenty years ago, in Europe, the terms was mainly used to described the resurgence of far-right movements. But the problem today is that Europe is facing "populism" of various political horizon, like left inspired "Podemos" in Spain, or other new far left movements increasingly popular in some parts of Europe, or movement that describe themselves as "unpolitical", like the M5S in Italy led by a former Stand-up Comical, the AfD in Germany.

It has now become a threat, an important one that is taking really seriously, and Trump victory has been seen as a populist triumph! By most European Populists, they all applauded it, not because of his programs or his political views, but because they saw it as a victory "against" the SYSTEM, the Elite, the political Establishments, etc. And, as a matter of facts, they all hope for a "Trump effect". And as a matter of facts, the targeted establishment is scared to death.

this why one finds all over the place articles insisting that Hilary lost despite "the will of the people", with titles like "How could Hilary lost while having 2.000.000 more votes?", or "Trump elected despite Clinton having 2.000.000 votes", and as the recount story unfold, some article titled "Hilary can still become president" again insisting on the 2.000.000 advance... You will have guessed that 99% of the European Media, political parties, intellectuals, personalities/celebrities, stand 100% behind Clinton.
For Them, Trump's election is the nightmare come true, not only because they have been already shaken by the Brexit vote, but because crucial popular consultations are due next week., culminating with the French presidential elections in April May 2017, followed by elections in Germany in sunmmer (where the AfD could win over 100 representatives and threaten Merkel (Obama last hope))...


A very good % made a devil's bargain - hoping that Paul Ryan and conservative Republicans, and other factors, will rein Trump in. The "Trump coalition" is very brittle and not even a majority of voters.
Maybe, but that does not explain why Trump was elected as the Republican Candidate in the first place and why were the more "traditional" rep candidate, among them Bush, so cruelly rejected.
Of course, those who voted for Trump only because he was the GOP candidate probably see it that way. But those who made the difference - although probably less numerous - probably not.
Gore gave in when the Supreme Court decided, not before. Votes were recounted in Florida.
Not so, the recount is part of the prescribed process and taking place under its rules.
Yes, but the situation was not quite the same. Not only did Gore won the popular vote, but the margin in terms of electoral vote was tiny 271/266, Florida was a scandal, the margin was a few hundreds votes, and the Supreme Court decision almost as outrageous. Indeed Florida recounted but not the way as the Gore team wanted, IIRC.
And Gore final submission to the results was far from being shared. The fight was legitimate and should have had continued.
I have forgot the details, but not the feeling of injustice we all had (especially the world). If Euroeans could have participated to the election, Gore would have won with 90% of the votes.
Not sure it is the case today.

Whatever the reasons behind the recount. There is no such thing as a tiny margin, 13.000 being the smallest margin, up to 70.000 in PA. To doubt this kind of results cannot be compared with casting doubts of a few hundreds votes victory which made the whole difference.
As you said, in order to reverse the results, not only Wisconsin would have to be guilty of fraud, but Michigan as well.
If one attributes Michigan to Trump, the actual score is 306 to 232... If Michigan goes to Hilary, the score would be 290 to 248, if Wisconsin goes to Hilary (after two massive fraud uncovered) the score would be 280 to 258...So unless a even bigger fraud is found in PA, then Hilary would win
that would make the EC score to 260 to 278...

She needs all three. And even then, it would not be a landslide. And it would imply a scandal without proportion, that is massive Fraud is three States. Recount may be part of the normal electoral process - although i have never witnessed anything like this under these circumstances - and however you want to look at it, this attempt is probably the greatest expression of defiance toward the electoral process ever!

I just don't see what is to be gained!
I am a lot less apocalyptic. First, from what I've read, it seems 99.9% likely that the recount will confirm the election results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, as they were announced.
Well i am, because it have a global perspective on these things. As i said, crucial and highly risky elections are coming in Europe where the lack of trust toward the institutions, electoral process, media, political establishments is at his highest since 1936!
If the recount would reveal that "electronic voting" can be hacked, not only in 1 States, but in 3 - considering that most European elections are now electronically done - what do you think the image of "democratic elections" will be?

Imagine one second the worst case scenario here: The recount shows that indeed elections were rigged but NOT enough to make Hilary win. You'll still have trump + the perfect storm falling on Europe, 6 days away from one of those tiny elections you might not be aware of but which could spark a crisis comparable with 2008.

I guess you think "What the hell is he talking about?"
Well, while the election of a far right president in Austria might seem anecdotal, and that is on the 6 of december, the referendum in Italy is a potential huge economic bomb. The silly political establishment thought those troubled times were the perfect circumstances to propose a huge constitutional reform there. Well in April 2016, everything looked fine. The yes was to win with like 55%.

Is it one of the first example of the "Trump effect", but as for today it is the NO, led by the "populist" party M5S and former trumplike billinair Silvio Berlusconi, that is predicted to win with 52%.
If the No wins, the Italian government falls, and new elections will have to be organized. According to Polls, the M5S - a party that started like a good Joke - is expected to win.
Now you might remember the impact of the Greek crisis, well Italy is quite in a similar situation, except with a GDP tens times as big. Italian banks are extremely fragile, and a nasty surprise would make them explode. We are talking of multi trillion balance sheets here - as i said, European banks are much huger than American ones.

So here what will happen if the Italian No wins (current polls gives a 52% lead for the No), the Italian government resigns, Italian Bonds falls sharply overnight, probably along with the Euro, as those constitutes most of what is left of Italian banks assets, they balance sheets will lose so much that they would be in need for massive "bail out"...It has been done in 2008, but now Italy has a public debt of 2.2 trillion Euros ( 2.5 trillions USD), or 132% of its GDP...Domino's effect would affect other southern European States like Spain and Portugal, and Greece will go under within seconds...

It could potentially turn into a even bigger crisis that 2008, and who would have to face it on the other side of the Atlantic, good old Donny!!!

I have said that the European Establishments were scared to death. It is to a point when no one knows what the European populations think about Trump elections, really.
Such a scare that very few polls have been organized to sense what the populations of Europe thought about Trump's victory, following the saying : "if you are afraid of the answers, don't ask the questions."

Of of the rare polls was about the French elections, and the Trump "effect".
62% now are saying that such a "surprise" (like Trump's election) is probable next year in France.
More scaring: 64% think that such a "surprise" would be a "good thing" for France!

This tells the mood. Now add a new economic Perfect Storm to it, and it might very well leads to the doomest scenario ever imagined, and my apologize if it is currently be me.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sun Nov 27, 2016 6:57 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Simple point: more people who live in the US and voted, voted for Clinton than Trump.
You can see as you want to see it.
Not really. The popular vote is a factor both parties have to take into account as they lay in future plans (especially since in the states that look demographically more like the country is expected to look in the future, - ethnicity, national origin, age - Clinton led) - and also in that it undercuts talk of a Trump mandate in the here and now.
Balsamo wrote:Hence my question: would you see it that way had Texas been the most populated States, giving whoever wins that States a tremendous lead in pop vote?
Of course.
Balsamo wrote:But even if we take your PoV, it cannot be said that this lead is illustrative to what happened in the 50 states, except maybe the great divide between California and the rest of the country.
Your CA fixation ignores the extent and depth of the partisan divide in the US, which is not a case of CA vs "America."
Balsamo wrote:Her historical lead is concentrated in One or two States. It is as much as a fact than the fact she won the pop vote by over 2 millions votes (actually she has + 2.220.000 and it might climb still).
She won the Non-Swing States by over 3.000.000 and lost the Swing States by 1.000.000.
Clinton didn't lead because of 1 or 2 states - but, even if she had, if most Americans live in 1 or 2 urbanized states, and rural states with skewed demographics can decide elections against the majority, then there is pressure in the system.
Balsamo wrote:It is also the richest State of America and has no idea of some issues affecting other States. Hasn't it like the 6th of 7th most powerful economy in the world?
But that isn't because it is "rich." Per capita income in CA is 15th in the US (but unequally distributed) - and median household income has been dropping fast in the past decade.
Balsamo wrote:Just as an additional information: Germany is the least represented State in the European Parliament, although it has the most representatives (99). Each representative represent 730.000 German citizens, while the Island of Malta has 6, just like the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg...Each representative represent 70.000 citizens. Quite unfair, but paradoxically, it is the most "democratic" option. Had the demographic and economic realities been observed, The EU would have been an Erzats of the "Greater Germany", even more now that Great Britain might leave it. And in fine, such an Union would have not worked.
None of this is news to someone who's grown up here and studied the federal system. What you keep ignoring is that the federal system is increasingly viewed as an imposition on people in the underrepresented areas and an impediment to solving 21st century problems. There will be blowback from these places, which reaction you seem to dislike - but no matter one's personal view, the pent-up frustration is a factor in American politics.
Balsamo wrote:
Nor did most of Trump's voters likely "succumb to populism," whatever that means.
Seriously? Is this new "political concept" not used in the USA?
Of course it is, populism has a long lineage in the US.
Balsamo wrote:Well i could write a long post explaining it, but it is useless as Trump's campaign has been the perfect example of what "Populism" means.
Calling to the so called "heart of the people" - without much thought of what the people is - "populists" propose an idealized version of the people. A populist is "outside" the political system - he might be a politician but outside the political game - which allows him not to follow the rules of the game. He present himself as the champion of the people opposing the existing "Elite", described as insensitive to the "real problem" of the people, mostly corrupted. A populist leads a "negative campaign", he does not propose anything, but gathered his supports from being "against".
My question had to do with the extent to which Trump's coalition is populist - how it will evolve - and the verb "succumbed." His coalition is very shaky, riven with rival interests - many of them anti-populist. My reply to you focused on Trump's voters, not Trump's campaign, right? All those defense moms, traditional wealthy conservatives and affluent professionals in the collar counties, evangelicals, and other hard-core Republicans who "came home" to vote for Trump didn't necessarily buy into his populist pitch.
Balsamo wrote:Trump victory has been seen as a populist triumph!
Right, that's explicitly what I think is jumping the gun.
Balsamo wrote:And as a matter of facts, the targeted establishment is scared to death.
In the US, the targeted elite seems to be rallying to Trump, burying differences, praising the possibilities, buying stocks, staffing the administration, and (hopefully) stacking the legislative agenda for long-favored corporate-conservative actions.
Balsamo wrote:this why one finds all over the place articles insisting that Hilary lost despite "the will of the people", with titles like "How could Hilary lost while having 2.000.000 more votes?"
Maybe - but as right-wing journalist Ben Shapiro wrote, Republicans and Democrats will ignore the underlying realities at their peril. I think that there's a mix of motives for such stories, ranging from honest concern to pragmatic considerations to attempts to squeeze the election into an analytical box as you keep trying to do.
Balsamo wrote:For Them, Trump's election is the nightmare come true, not only because they have been already shaken by the Brexit vote, but because crucial popular consultations are due next week., culminating with the French presidential elections in April May 2017, followed by elections in Germany in sunmmer (where the AfD could win over 100 representatives and threaten Merkel (Obama last hope))...
I've clearly not been writing about the impact of Trump's win on Europe - or Asia or Latin American - but rather how it plays out in terms of domestic politics. Perhaps this is why we keep writing at cross purposes - we're not actually discussing the same thing. I don't know, because you seem to be trying to say something about US politics, too. It is not that I don't consider the international ramifications of US elections, including this one, it's just that that's not what I've been writing about in this forum. For another thing, I'm not qualified to pass judgment on international finance and the global economy - it's just not my expertise - although since '08 I think there a lot of profound weaknesses in the world economy, it's just not what I know deeply.
Balsamo wrote:
A very good % made a devil's bargain - hoping that Paul Ryan and conservative Republicans, and other factors, will rein Trump in. The "Trump coalition" is very brittle and not even a majority of voters.
Maybe, but that does not explain why Trump was elected as the Republican Candidate in the first place and why were the more "traditional" rep candidate, among them Bush, so cruelly rejected.
But it does explain why such people supported him in the end and didn't follow National Review types in sitting out the election or reluctantly supporting Clinton. Which is the issue here. All along, Trump engendered strong negatives - in polling stronger than Clinton's - and you write as though the election simply erases all that.
Balsamo wrote:Of course, those who voted for Trump only because he was the GOP candidate probably see it that way. But those who made the difference - although probably less numerous - probably not.
Which is almost axiomatic. But also an important factor as Trump governs.
Balsamo wrote:
Gore gave in when the Supreme Court decided, not before. Votes were recounted in Florida.
Not so, the recount is part of the prescribed process and taking place under its rules.
Yes, but the situation was not quite the same.
I didn't say it was the same - I only replied to your misleading statement about "the arguments put forward in favor of Gore's submission in 2000" which implied that the situations are the same.
Balsamo wrote:There is no such thing as a tiny margin, 13.000 being the smallest margin, up to 70.000 in PA. To doubt this kind of results cannot be compared with casting doubts of a few hundreds votes victory which made the whole difference.
As you said, in order to reverse the results, not only Wisconsin would have to be guilty of fraud, but Michigan as well.
Your reply makes it sound like I support the recount - or instigated it! Recall I said it was mostly useless and in any event dubious, based on wild assumptions and unproven claims about evidence. My point is different: it's not the great wrong or risk you keep trying to make it. Sanders today said it's not a big deal and it is Stein's right. That's not far from where I come out. I wouldn't advise the recount given the facts - but it is hardly an outrage.
Balsamo wrote:If one attributes Michigan to Trump, the actual score is 306 to 232... If Michigan goes to Hilary, the score would be 290 to 248, if Wisconsin goes to Hilary (after two massive fraud uncovered) the score would be 280 to 258...So unless a even bigger fraud is found in PA, then Hilary would win that would make the EC score to 260 to 278...
Clearly, I know about the electoral vote - and just as clearly I have said that reversing it in all three state has almost zero chance.
Balsamo wrote:I just don't see what is to be gained!
I've told you: Jill Stein and the Greens get to build their mailing list. They also get some media attention.

Again, there's a difference to saying that there's nothing to be gained (what I've been saying, at least in terms of election results) and that "It is the whole democratic process that is being put in jeopardy" and "Those guys are playing with fire." Sanders, again, has it about right.
Balsamo wrote:
I am a lot less apocalyptic. First, from what I've read, it seems 99.9% likely that the recount will confirm the election results in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, as they were announced.
If the recount would reveal that "electronic voting" can be hacked, not only in 1 States, but in 3 - considering that most European elections are now electronically done - what do you think the image of "democratic elections" will be?
What it should be, under those conditions?
Balsamo wrote:Imagine one second the worst case scenario here: The recount shows that indeed elections were rigged but NOT enough to make Hilary win. You'll still have trump + the perfect storm falling on Europe, 6 days away from one of those tiny elections you might not be aware of but which could spark a crisis comparable with 2008.
Again, I doubt this - but even if you're right, if the elections were tampered with, then we have to deal with it. I think that the chances that there will be a material difference in the result are almost non-existent.
Balsamo wrote:I guess you think "What the hell is he talking about?"
I do.
Balsamo wrote:Well, while the election of a far right president in Austria might seem anecdotal,
Not at all.
Balsamo wrote:Is it one of the first example of the "Trump effect", but as for today it is the NO, led by the "populist" party M5S and former trumplike billinair Silvio Berlusconi, that is predicted to win with 52%.
If the No wins, the Italian government falls, and new elections will have to be organized. According to Polls, the M5S - a party that started like a good Joke - is expected to win.
Now you might remember the impact of the Greek crisis, well Italy is quite in a similar situation, except with a GDP tens times as big. Italian banks are extremely fragile, and a nasty surprise would make them explode. We are talking of multi trillion balance sheets here - as i said, European banks are much huger than American ones.
I'm aware of Italy's situation, also other European developments you've mentioned - in France and also with Merkel. As well as the precarious situation in finance involving the "PIIGS" countries. The overall situation makes me quite nervous - but it is not what I've been writing about. These are related issues - but not the same issue. These scenarios are not on account of a recount request in three states that has almost zero chance of showing anything wrong. The situation in Asia may be as fraught, but I didn't focus on that either in writing about the recount. All these risk factors exist, and will exist, recount or not. Actually, Trump or not. Although Trump's election certainly will cause effects in its own right.

Ok, now I am truly leaving this thread behind and reverting to Holocaust discussion. I'd planned not to post more on the election but felt such a long post deserved a reply . . .
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 12022
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2014 10:55 am
Custom Title: Salt of the earth
Location: Pacific coast outside of Tokyo bay.

Re: Trump will win!

Post by TJrandom » Sun Nov 27, 2016 7:35 pm

StatMech... thanks for your contributions here. It was educational. :gp:

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Sun Nov 27, 2016 10:47 pm

Statmec:
Not really. The popular vote is a factor both parties have to take into account as they lay in future plans (especially since in the states that look demographically more like the country is expected to look in the future, - ethnicity, national origin, age - Clinton led) - and also in that it undercuts talk of a Trump mandate in the here and now.
Political Parties, future plans... Hum... sorry if i express my skepticism when those two concepts are in the same sentence.

BTW, i have insisted that California will be the future, just not yet.
Of course.
Really, you would submit to Texans and not be tempted by saying that "those bigots do not represent America?". Even if the Democrats would have won in the vast majority of States, and that Texas was electing someone like...Trump or worse a Cruz would go after everything that is dear to you? Honestly?
If yes, i can only applause.

Anyway, on a more global perspective, Hilary Clinton did declare:
"That is horrifying. That is not the way our democracy works. Been around for 240 years. We've had free and fair elections. We've accepted the outcomes when we may not have liked them, and that is what must be expected of anyone standing on a a general election. I, for one, am appalled that somebody that is the nominee of one of our two major parties would take that kind of position." and "He said something truly horrifying ... he refused to say that he would respect the results of this election. That is a direct threat to our democracy."
She was speaking of the system being around for 240 years and nothing else.
Your CA fixation ignores the extent and depth of the partisan divide in the US, which is not a case of CA vs "America."
Quite the contrary, i said CA was the illustration of this divide.

It is not a fixation, but a simple observation. Hilary has a 4.000.000 lead in CA, and a little less than 1.5 million leads in NY...Total of the lead in those 2 States = 5.500.000.
Now you want to kind of spread this lead across the 50 States, and speak about a lead nationwide.
Again, it depends on how you look at the number.
I am not wrong when i say that without CA, it is trump that has a lead of 1.7 million within the 49 States. This is just as factual than the 2.2 million lead Hilary enjoys.
Clinton didn't lead because of 1 or 2 states
Yes she does...simple math. Just remove CA and add the numbers.
But that isn't because it is "rich." Per capita income in CA is 15th in the US (but unequally distributed) - and median household income has been dropping fast in the past decade.
Not only, i agree. My point was to insist that CA if considered as a country had not the same issues than others. If considered as a Country, California would still be within the first 7 economies in the world.
Per Capita, well no one beats the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg... So the USA are not the biggest economy after all, Luxembourg is.

None of this is news to someone who's grown up here and studied the federal system. What you keep ignoring is that the federal system is increasingly viewed as an imposition on people in the underrepresented areas and an impediment to solving 21st century problems. There will be blowback from these places, which reaction you seem to dislike - but no matter one's personal view, the pent-up frustration is a factor in American politics.
Not sure i understand this 100%. But my personal opinion does not count. I don't blame personal frustration, i would even share the frustration that the mindset of California or NY is not to be found in every States, that would make America great again...lol...
It is just not the case.
And when it comes to electoral system, there are just not holy grail. The results of each of them creates frustration, whether it is a purely proportional system, or a majority system, a mix between the twos, none are perfect. There are partisans and opponents to each of them.

In France, The National Front gathered around 30% of the voters and has 2 representatives at the French Congress (two at the commons and 0 at the Senate)...Well as far as i am concerned, i do not complain about that state, even without ignoring the frustration of around 7 million voters.
On the other hand, in Germany highly proportional system, The Green Party can grap 10% of the seats with 8% of the votes.

Now if you come up with the perfect electoral system that will pleases everyone...Well you might get the Noble prize.
My question had to do with the extent to which Trump's coalition is populist - how it will evolve - and the verb "succumbed."
I used the term "succumbed" in the context of the European media. And yes by electing a populist - not his coalition - some American voters did succumb to "populism".

As far as what his "reign" will look like. It is still too early to call. The first signs seem to indicate a pure "Republican Reaction", the kind one would have if a Ted Cruz had been elected. As i said in one of my early post, it is quite possible that Trump will end up being a puppet like W. He might also become uncontrollable (and in this case i did not exclude the possibility of an impeachment by a hostile GOP congress)...or we can have a mix of the two. It will all depend on the real balance of power between the various factions. Again, too early to call.
My reply to you focused on Trump's voters, not Trump's campaign
I understood for quite some times that we were dealing with things from quite different perspectives... :lol:

I personally don't think one can really isolate the voters and the campaign that made them vote, except in a pure conceptually mode. I mean by that that one cannot say that the voters are all racist because the campaign had some racist tone. On the other hand, the Trump campaign was at it worse during the primaries, and he still kicked out the other candidates. Had Cruz won the primaries, the GOP electors would have voted for him the same way as they have voted for Trump, except that this would have not been enough.

But that is another debate.
Right, that's explicitly what I think is jumping the gun.
Oups, sorry...Terry Giliam sydrom again...but i don't know what jumping the gun means... oups.
So after googling, it means "anticipate", right?
Ok, again, i was talking in the European context. Marine Le Pen was among the first to congratulate Trump, just like she was the first to congratulate the AfD in Germany. Populists do recognize each others. Nangel Farrage was happy too while 100% of the mass media was in disbelief just like after the Brexit.
They might be "jumping the gun", for my part, i just fear the "trump effect" as i suspect there will be one. As usual, given the pessimistic nature of my prediction, i just hope that i will be proven wrong.
In the US, the targeted elite seems to be rallying to Trump, burying differences, praising the possibilities, buying stocks, staffing the administration, and (hopefully) stacking the legislative agenda for long-favored corporate-conservative actions.
Exactly what i have foreseen months ago. But the real test has not begun yet. Indeed, for the moment Stocks are at a all time high...We agree that it was not what some of the Trump voters expected...lol...But the real relationship will unfold later.
That is the difference with Europe, Trump can still look like an accident, just like seeing Jean Marie Le Pen at the second round during the presidential in 2000...a shock, but only an incident...In May it will be more than an accident, we are aware of the problem for a very long time. Now the problem just seem almost unstoppable.

As i said, and contrary to what Masha suggested, the USA have plenty of efficient "barriers" ( garde-fou as we say in French), the main ones are the election in just two years. In my pragmatic view, that what the Democrats, and all the Anti-Trump, should focus on. If the Democrats fail to take back Congress, at least one of the chamber, then things will turn sour.

Now if Trump turns out to become a puppet promoting the corporate-conservative actions, well he won't be elected, and the by then voters, younger and even more multi ethnic that before, will - i hope - turn for the very last chance: a Bernie. (i have heard rumors that he is planning to be candidate in 4 years, but i just don't believe it, unfortunately he is just too old).

Trump election might very well be the Republican last "Hurrah", and there is no doubt in my mind that California will be the future.
I am quite optimistic on America, much more than i am on Europe where every possible democratic moves have already been used against the rise of populism...Now, we just have to sit and watch the tragedy as it unfolds. but nothing is said and done yet, so there is still a hope, but things look really bad right now.
Maybe - but as right-wing journalist Ben Shapiro wrote, Republicans and Democrats will ignore the underlying realities at their peril. I think that there's a mix of motives for such stories, ranging from honest concern to pragmatic considerations to attempts to squeeze the election into an analytical box as you keep trying to do.
Except that i am not squeezing the election into an analytical box - in this case i can use "for whatever that means" - but if History should never be forgotten, and past actions should be remembered, it is a normal reaction to warn on the mistakes that have been made in Europe for the last 20 years, while confronted with the same kind of threat. And my pessimism is that most political leaders in various European countries, and the situation is even worse at the European levels (EU) - they still just don't get what is going on. Most still did not change their strategy, their perception. "wrong premises leads to wrong decisions and awful results", and just to take this example, the choice of Hilary as candidate was the typical example of choice based on wrong premises. The theory that Trump did not have any chance of winning the general election - and which lasted almost until the 8th - was based on a wrong approach, on wrong tools, on wrong premises.

Actually i might agree with your journalist, Shapiro. Yes as i said, it might be the GOP last victory if they see in Trump election a popular endorsement on what the GOP stands for. That is exactly what happened when new electoral laws excluded the National Front from Congress, as followed a surge in vote for the "democratic right" which felt invested like never before. If those voters wanted to promote the republican values as sold by the GOP they would have elected the candidate they wanted, Jebb Bush for example.
But the same way, if the Democrats delude themselves with this tremendous pop vote - and sorry it comes from California mostly - and used it as a pretext not to reconsider themselves, eluding the Bernie experiment, and allowing themselves, by doing so to "ignore the underlying realities", they will pay for it as well.

I think that Trump's election should be considered outside the traditional dynamic of Democrats vs Republicans.

I take Trump election as en expression of populism, and yes a populism triumph. Now if this reality is ignore and if the focus is back on the basic Dem Rep confrontation, then there will be fundamental data missing. Again, Trump might very well end up as a puppet in the hands of the GOP, but the voters who voted for him were not seeing this that way (a important portion of them anyway).

Granted, no one can really change over night. America has excuses, but Europe has none. Continental Europe even imported American puritanism, transformed into a hard "political correctness", translated into laws, laws against hate speech, etc...Well the Hate has never been so great than today. Those laws managed to hide the reality for some times. But reality is going to explode anyway.

Seriously, Trump would have fallen into various prosecutions in Europe. He broke many hate speech laws. What he did is not even conceivable in Europe...He would have won his election in Jail probably. (intentional exaggeration).
I've clearly not been writing about the impact of Trump's win on Europe - or Asia or Latin American - but rather how it plays out in terms of domestic politics. Perhaps this is why we keep writing at cross purposes - we're not actually discussing the same thing.
:lol:
As a matter of facts.
But the two perspectives are complementary. I have seen the distress of Trump's win, especially on this forum. I guess the atmosphere was different on codoh. But i also noticed the natural tendency to reduce it to a kind of domestic affairs, as if it was only an American affair.
This is why i am writing from another perspective, first because there are not much non anglo-saxon member of the forum, but me...But because as the head of the Empire, America tends to forget the influence it had on Europe for the last 80 years. And what happens in America will have great repercussion on the outskirts of its zone of influence - to use a old way of saying things. The same way what is going in Europe will affect you more than you (American people) think.

You gave the world this bloody "mortgage crisis", Europe will soon give you the "populism" nightmare. Politically and sociologically it is done...Trump has been elected. Now will come the economical consequences of that {!#%@}, and that will hurt. And unfortunately, it will be Donny in the oval office to deal with it.
This is why it is important to grasp the global nature of what is behind this election.
it's just that that's not what I've been writing about in this forum. For another thing, I'm not qualified to pass judgment on international finance and the global economy - it's just not my expertise - although since '08 I think there a lot of profound weaknesses in the world economy, it's just not what I know deeply.
Well this is why i am writing about that. Not only it is my right, but well, someone has to do it, right?
I am not judging anyone here. It is absolutely normal that you Americans focus on the domestic issues and consequences of this elections.

Regarding international finance and global economy, i was unfortunate enough to have waste some of my precious years in that {!#%@}. That is right, i did this awful things called "buying and selling", identifying what is to buy and what is to sell short, working on the future markets to a point of such disgust that i don't feel owning a single stock even in some retirement account. And yes, i am getting poorer everyday... lol
Now i could write pages on that scam...but this is not the forum to do it.
So let's just say that the world is walking on eggs here...ok?

People are just not aware of the details, but they sense that something is not right. The Greeks have now quite a good idea of how things can turn sour. In most parts of the world, the situation has been momentarily stabilized at a cost of trillions of your/our money...but clearly nothing has been fixed. In Europe at least, the States did not have those trillions they used, so they borrowed it. And now, according to the orthodoxy, they just have no choice that to get some money back where they can, that is the people, to reduce costs of those insanely generous welfare system built after world war II at the expense of the same people.
This is the main source of this international social malaise within the traditional occidental world, meanwhile not the 1% (i guess even i still belong to that group) but the 0.1% which is at the source of the crisis not only did they escape any prosecution (with the exception of Iceland) but they are still telling what the rules should be.

They was a European saying : "People would accept anything unless one touch their TV-Screen" well the problem is that most people have a TV on credit, paying content with a credit card, and are well aware that it might be taken from them.
But it does explain why such people supported him in the end and didn't follow National Review types in sitting out the election or reluctantly supporting Clinton. Which is the issue here. All along, Trump engendered strong negatives - in polling stronger than Clinton's - and you write as though the election simply erases all that.
I am not convinced by the available explanations. I could expand on that later.
Which is almost axiomatic. But also an important factor as Trump governs.
Well it is.
But then the questions remains. Trump was surely the worst choice to promote the traditional Rep agenda. Bush or Cruz would have been a much more secure choice. To identify what groups voted for Trump and for what specific reasons is still a job to be done.
While the inquiry you participated to and that you posted here was quite interesting.
I only replied to your misleading statement about "the arguments put forward in favor of Gore's submission in 2000" which implied that the situations are the same.
Well it was quite similar to what Hilary Clinton said (quoted above).
Your reply makes it sound like I support the recount - or instigated it! Recall I said it was mostly useless and in any event dubious, based on wild assumptions and unproven claims about evidence. My point is different: it's not the great wrong or risk you keep trying to make it. Sanders today said it's not a big deal and it is Stein's right. That's not far from where I come out. I wouldn't advise the recount given the facts - but it is hardly an outrage.
Not at all, i even quote your first reaction commenting that i could not agree more.

I have just pointed out the damages that Clinton (through her team) reversal on that subject would do. Again referring to the quote posted above. And the danger for the democracy not only in America, but for the whole western world starting with Europe confronted with very delicate and important elections in the coming months.
For once i agree with Hilary that indeed such initiatives was dangerous for democracy if they had no merits. It seems that she changed her mind or just don't care which is worse.
Clearly, I know about the electoral vote - and just as clearly I have said that reversing it in all three state has almost zero chance.
As i said, we agree on that the initiatives has no merit.
Therefore nothing good could come out of it. Except for a short term profit for miss Stein...but then who cares about that? Good for her if she is stupid and thinks she is smart. She is probably not aware of what is really at stake here.
Again, I doubt this - but even if you're right, if the elections were tampered with, then we have to deal with it. I think that the chances that there will be a material difference in the result are almost non-existent.
At least for that we won't have to wait for long. The referendum is held on the 4th of december...
My prediction have been written above...
And god, i hope you are right!
We'll speak about that on the 5th, next on the 6th will be the presidential election in Austria...

but it is not what I've been writing about.
:lol:
I know, that is why i am doing it.
Just remember that what takes place in America will have an impact on the rest of the world. Well America wanted the globalization, right?
Some events, like this bloody recount, might seem insignificant as far as domestic issues are concerned, but it might have unexpected consequences...just not on the domestic front.


EDIT: News came out, Francois Fillon - CNN just called him the "French Thatcher" just blew the primary winning with over 66% of the votes.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Mon Nov 28, 2016 12:36 pm

Thanks, TJrandom.

I can't resist one more comment, about the US elections as opposed to geopolitical nightmares, because yesterday's lunacy has been too delicious:

Contrary to Balsamo's argument that the popular vote is some kind of dangling modifier, the Orange Shitgibbon itself is now, based in part on "reporting" from Infowars, claiming that millions of illegal votes were cast in the election and, deducting those, he won the popular vote.

Not a peep from Balsamo about this insidious BS - but he gives us much hyperventilating about Jill Stein and Clinton supposedly destroying democracy and provoking a global financial catastrophe.

To be clear: Trump is now challenging the integrity of an election which he won! One reason Trump is doing this is obvious: to falsify a mandate he didn't receive. A mandate which Balsamo, with his cavalier and groundless dismissal of the popular vote, also implies Trump has won; his popular vote deficit, in reality, has clearly gotten under DJT's skin. In his warped way, attuned as he is to the consequences of his losing the overall vote, by trying to overturn the popular vote Trump seems to be helping argue the case for Stein's recount.

So there's a potential upside to Stein's recount which I'd not thought of: unleashing the president-elect's inner Donald and, as Trump stocks his team with Koch brothers operatives and pioneers new frontiers in corruption, rekindling a bit of the spirit of opposition to his presidency.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Mon Nov 28, 2016 6:08 pm

Statmec:
Contrary to Balsamo's argument that the popular vote is some kind of dangling modifier
Did i said that?
I said you can play with the data all you want, everyone can, and everyone does according to his candidate preference. Most importantly i said that there were no "perfect electoral process", and there are plenty of variations, and that all of them produce frustrations for those who lose.

Statmec:
Not a peep from Balsamo about this insidious BS - but he gives us much hyperventilating about Jill Stein and Clinton supposedly destroying democracy and provoking a global financial catastrophe.
Just saw this this morning.
The guy is a clown, has been a clown and most probably will continue being one.

But if everyone is playing the rigged election card - i know it is only Stein, but as the Clinton's team joins the party, i say everyone - why shouldn't he have some fun?

The whole show is deplorable. Yes Trump started it before the election and even during the election, only agreeing with the results when he won it.
It was already deplorable, and i agreed with the voices denouncing Trump posture.

Maybe these are a reflection of the times, but the sad thing here is that none of those clowns - and Trump being the first along with Stein and the Clinton's team - seems to give a {!#%@} of the image of the country. Coming from Trump, there is no surprise, he said it before, and besides he is a dickhead.

But coming from the Clinton team, and even Bernie, what happened to the pre-eclection outrage? What happened to the accusation of "talking down our democracy?"
From the WaPo:

...
Tim Kaine said that Trump’s claims of a “rigged” election reminded him of the Third World politicking he had seen as a missionary in Honduras.
Michelle Obama:
“You do not keep American democracy in suspense. Because look, too many people have marched and protested and fought and died for this democracy,”
President Obama:
“That is not a joking matter. That is dangerous,” he said. “That undermines our democracy.”
[/quote

]And of course, Hilary - according to the WaPo:
“Our country has been around for 240 years, and we’re a country based on laws, and we have hot, contested elections going back to the very beginning. But one of our hallmarks has always been that we accept the outcomes of our election.”
From another site, also before the election:
It's a pretty dangerous thing to say in the sense that if people don't believe in the validity of election results, that could create instability and a lack of faith in the democratic process," said Geoffrey Skelley, a political scientist at the University of Virginia.
It just happens that i do agree with all those Statements.

Now all of a sudden, a unfounded recounted is described as "no big deal" (Bernie), or even sane for democracy.
What kind of a message does that send?

User avatar
NathanC
Regular Poster
Posts: 599
Joined: Tue Mar 17, 2015 9:19 am

Re: Trump will win!

Post by NathanC » Mon Nov 28, 2016 9:45 pm

They did accept the election results initially. And the recount is not "unfounded": there's a discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college vote.

For example, I was following John Kerry on twitter. After election day, he was talking about how he's going to work with the next team to ensure a smooth transition.

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2079
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Mon Nov 28, 2016 11:33 pm

NathanC wrote:They did accept the election results initially. And the recount is not "unfounded": there's a discrepancy between the popular vote and the electoral college vote.

For example, I was following John Kerry on twitter. After election day, he was talking about how he's going to work with the next team to ensure a smooth transition.
Sorry, but i don't really understand the argument here.

- They did accept the election result initially.
And that was the good thing to do with 232 electoral votes. Had there been a situation comparable to 2000, they would have had the right to ask for investigation, because those were exceptional circumstances. But after having made all those solemn declarations about the importance of respecting the institutions and the democratic electoral process, outlining the dangers of not doing so, well there is something wrong with the message.

I don't see the relation between the fact that some democratic States mobilized and voted in mass for Hilary and against Trump and suspicions of fraud in the elections in Wisconsin, Michigan and PA...I don't get that logic. The Clinton campaign itself told CNN that there were no evidence of Fraud in any of those three States.
Now i understand Stein took the initiative all by herself, and was given more money that she managed to gather for her all campaign, in order to do so.
It is stupid form her, while as Statmec pointed out, she might get some benefits out of it - for whatever that means in her case.
The wrong message is the Clinton's team endorsing it after all the fuss they made before the election.
The wrong message is Bernie saying that it is no big deal, because the message then means that it is no big deal to suspect any public consultations, any elections at any level.
Now i am not even saying that there were no fraud, but if this is a legitimate behavior to cast doubts on results without founded suspicions - again we are not talking of the Florida 2000 case here - then what about every single future elections?

I mean seriously, all the quotes i gave are right: it is a dangerous thing to play with the foundation of democracy. The game can go on as long as all participants agree with the rules, and believe in the integrity - at least the best they can - of the process.
Otherwise, there are just no difference between elections in America and in Africa, where every single popular consultations lead to violence, and sometimes civil war. Now America is more advanced, so they will just be battles between lawyers at each elections.

Trump posture before the election was 100% wrong. Why would it be good after the election?

I am blamed for making a "fixation" on California, when around the world no one can seem to get over this "pop vote" thing. Those kind discrepancies happens in many electoral system, as i tried to show. The purely proportional vote is often described as the most democratic, even though it does not reflect the real numbers so that a party with 8% of the vote might get 10% of the seats, while a party with 22% gets the same number of seats than a the one that had 19%.
On the other side, again i am repeating myself, but the purely "majority system" leads to a party with 6.8 million votes with only two seats. It is a kind of "winner takes it all" kind of things.

To be clear, i am not happy at all with Trump election. But this should not lead to emotional reaction like changing a very old electoral system that has made its proof and has guaranteed the American Democracy all this time, just because the results are unbearable.

All i am trying to say here is that if you succumb to the temptation of touching the most fundamental cornerstone of how democracy works, then you just open a Pandora box. That would mean that any future majority (the one you like or hate) will feel itself authorize to change it according to its interest.

Well, It is exactly what some European countries did. Did it change anything? Not really, only that if one day a fascist like government is elected it will have all the legitimacy to alter the rules how THEY like.

Let me summarize shortly how the State tried to fight the then far-right National Front.
This party had its first win in 1986, sending for the first time since 1945 35 representative to the French Parliament. That was a national shock. But it had been made possible because the then socialist president Francois Mitterand changed the electoral process to the proportional system. It was one of his campaign promises - and also motivated by the fact that his Socialist Party would lose the election big time.
5 Years of Petainsist presence in Congress was not a pleasant thing, so the electoral process was once again changed, this time very hard, that is into a 100% majority system.
Election will have two steps, the first round, and the second one with the two (sometimes 3) finalists. Only the candidate winning the second round, implying a absolute majority of the vote, 50% + 1, would win the election.

The system worked perfectly: the far right was expelled from Congress for the next 25 years. But of course, it also made impossible for other non-fascist movement, like Labor Party, Communist Party, Green Party, or whatever. So in order to alter that bad consequences, deals were made, and political games were at full. The Socialist Party would "give" some territory to the Communist and the Green, while the main Party from the right would also give some territories to the Center-right.
Another very bad consequence was that popular participation to election started to shrink.

The situation was perfect as all the problems related to popular anger could be hidden behind a curtain. The Democratic Congress was sane.

In Belgium, they dealt with the extreme problem differently, they could not change the proportional system, no one can as it is written in stone. So they changed the law regarding the public financing of political parties. In Europe, political expenses are have to be paid by public fund, with public limits. They decided that from now on, Political Parties would be funded on their present representation in Congress, according to the result of the last election.
The result? It is impossible to launch a new political party. If you start a new one, you'll get nothing. Unfortunately, the Flemish far right was already represented and therefore could still get the public fund...they are now more or less is in Power.

The lesson of all this?
IT DOES NOT WORK.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Nov 29, 2016 1:15 am

Trump at least has an inkling that he's a populist who lost the popular vote and compromised in that sense.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5095
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 4:45 pm
Location: At the hundredth meridian, where the great plains begin

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeff_36 » Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:04 am

I still can't believe it. I mean, there is no way that half of Americans are like this guy.... Am I right?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:28 am

Ah, a hidden benefit of Trump's win: Jeff_36's idealized, heroic view of the US and its people is irrefutably challenged! :)

Because, sadly, yes, we have many folks like Delta dude, including this sweet and thoughtful Chicago gal, a gifted writer from Wisconsin, and these creative types from Kansas.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34981
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Gord » Tue Nov 29, 2016 2:34 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:I still can't believe it. I mean, there is no way that half of Americans are like this guy.... Am I right?
Only about 36% of them, by my guess. ;)
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Tue Nov 29, 2016 11:36 pm

. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:49 am

. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Wed Nov 30, 2016 7:50 pm

Looks like Trump has decided - rather than to drain the swamp - to stock the swamp with gators - and especially Goldman Sachs type critters. We've kinda elected Cruz/Tea Party + Wall St + Koch Bros/Club for Growth + Breitbart - headed up by Your Crazy Uncle With the Orange Hair Who Won't Shut Up About His Favorite CTs. It is truly time for the creatures from the lagoon . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Dec 01, 2016 12:15 am

I get it. You dust off the Ryan-Price repeal of Obamacare and privatization of Medicaid and Medicare, leaving average people with less coverage and higher payments. You concoct a pro-business tax policy with tax "relief" for the top earners. You privatize infrastructure maintenance and building - you expand the privatization of education - you use the office of President to promote your global brand and business interests. You get rid of consumer protection oversight and you eliminate safeguards against financial practices like those that led to the financial crisis in '08. You put in a treasury director whose bank was a foreclosure machine in the wake of the '08 real estate meltdown. You pledge to do away with protections for workers on the job and for environmental safety. You plan to take away women's right to choose. You threaten people's voting rights. You stick a bunch of billionaires, racists, corporate raiders, and reactionaries in your cabinet. And then you brand this toxic stew - basically a rehash of Republican/Tea Party talking points - "POPULISM" and declare that everything's finally ok. And you cap this off with "victory" rallies where you supporters get to adulate you. No {!#%@} thanks.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Xcalibur » Thu Dec 01, 2016 1:48 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:a profile in courage

Gives a whole new truth to Trump's claim that Romney was "on his knees" in 2012.... Mitt Romney, aka, "Phil Atio".

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Dec 01, 2016 2:02 am

LOL
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

Xcalibur
Frequent Poster
Posts: 1434
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 5:56 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Xcalibur » Thu Dec 01, 2016 7:10 am

Local Dems here still making dumb arguments why HRC lost...And Stein seems to be (unsurprisingly locally, stillborn).

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Dec 01, 2016 11:23 am

Same as national House Democrats, who emerged from the meeting where they re-elected Pelosi yesterday telling reporters that the party must "stay the course." The average age of the re-elected House Democratic leaders is 77. Just sayin'.

What debate they are having - whether to be the "white working class party" or the "'emerging democratic majority' party" - seems so this past year and very little future. They need a strategy for being the minority opposition in Congress, during the time of the Orange Death, that connects to an electoral plan for '18 and '20. And the old farts should just just go away and turn things over to leaders who will actually be alive during the coming '20s. I don't think that the new strategy can or should be either "Crooked Donald" or "hey, we're white, too."
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Dec 01, 2016 5:59 pm

Trump as the savior of 1,000 jobs which Carrier had said were moving from Indiana to Monterrey, Mexico: from what I can discern, the working-class hero president backed off punitive measures for United Technologies, parent of Carrier, like the tariffs he'd threatened or the denial of defense contracts advocated by Bernie - and instead worked with Pence to sweeten the pot with "incentives." Is this how we now are to do business? What's now to stop big companies from gesticulating and barking about moving operations to Mexico or wherever and then putting their figurative hands out demanding a payment, tax relief or some other "incentive"?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:35 pm

Historians reflect on Trump's antecedents - fascist or not? is the question even helpful? - and dangers from the rising right in the West in historical context.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:28 am

Carrier updates #1 and #2
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34981
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Gord » Fri Dec 02, 2016 7:35 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Carrier updates #1 and #2
Trump is pro-business and anti-tax, anti-regulation, and anti-government. He'll consider it a win if he cuts Carrier's taxes, gives them "corporate welfare" and buries the news behind another "stupid text war" smokescreen.

Or will he have another way to divert attention, now that everyone seems to be aware than he's doing it on purpose? Maybe he'll swap out his tweet wars for something else, like appointing highly inappropriate people to government positions (maybe a few racist judges in Alabama or something, for example).

As a non-American, I can't wait to find out. #thankgoditsnotmycountry :lol:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 02, 2016 11:57 am

Gord wrote: . . . Or will he have another way to divert attention . . .
Since he won't sell his business, perhaps he can use lawsuits against him - from employees, customers, contractors, competitors - as a distraction. Judging from Trump U and Pussygate, there might could be more suits. His business practices come across as being far on the shady end of things. Sexual harassment in the workplace alone should provide viewers of the Trump presidency, er, American citizens, with lots of dramatic reality TV. Plus, he's already set himself up, with his quick Trump U settlement and payoff to Carrier (e.g. Trump is threatening millions of $ of tax breaks and other incentives to businesses who dare saying they'll move jobs overseas*), as a guy who can be shaken down.

-------------------
* According to POLITICO:
[Trump's] factory tour and press conference at the Carrier plant, both carried live on all three cable networks, served to burnish his image as a champion of the working class. Around 2:30 p.m. eastern time, cable TV networks, after weeks of live footage of people getting in and out of the gilded elevator in the Trump Tower lobby, cut in unison to a live shot of the president-elect walking down the stairs from his airplane on a blustery Indianapolis afternoon. A few moments later, they showed Trump, in a black suit and long red tie, walking around the floor of the Carrier factory nearby where the company had planned to move 1,100 jobs to Mexico until Trump got them to reconsider.

“Companies are not going to leave the United States anymore without consequences, Trump said during a press conference, also carried wall-to-wall by the networks, at the Carrier plant.

Never mind the less glossy details of the deal—the fact that Indiana taxpayers will foot the bill for the $7 million in state tax incentives being provided to Carrier or the new and likely unsustainable precedent of rewarding companies threatening to go overseas that flies in the face of the free market principles conservatives have long held dear.

For Trump, the politics—and the imagery—are premium. The appearance of the president-elect following through almost immediately on his promise to negotiate, to get tough and do whatever necessary to restore manufacturing jobs in America’s heartland.

“There will be consequences for companies that go overseas,” Trump vowed. “These companies aren’t going to be leaving anymore. They’re not going to be taking people’s hearts out.”

Despite Trump’s emphatic language, Carrier is still moving 1,300 jobs to a plant in Mexico. That didn’t stop the president-elect from lauding the company, its executives and the workers he met on the factory floor, and predicting that Carrier will share in the positive short-term publicity he has managed to create around what is reportedly a $7 million deal over the next decade.
Last night - as happened so often during the primaries - the evening news interrupted its broadcast with a hysterical "breaking news" alert - I thought perhaps Kim Jong Un had nuked Oregon - and cut in with over an hour of live feed from Trump's Ohio "victory" rally.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 02, 2016 12:26 pm

a critter from the lagoon: Tom Price (hostility to Medicaid and Medicare has never really gone away on the loony right, which includes Paul Ryan, who has the smarts to dress his loathing up with charts and graphs)

On Medicare (and to a degree Obamacare), Senate Republicans, it is being said, are the dog that caught the car: what do they did with the big bastard now? Fearing backlash from voters who depend on the programs they plan to gut, these Senators are urging House firebrands to slow down on privatizing Medicare and "repeal and replace" - their strategy is to pull enough Dems into voting for GOP legislation that when they face voters, Republicans can present the healthcare changes as a bipartisan action. Given what we've seen from the Dems, I expect some form of the Senate Republican strategy to work over time.

Also, as Republicans haven't bothered to come up in 6 years' time with a "replace" plan for Obamacare (there isn't really a viable "replace" that retains pre-existing condition coverage - and Trump's "something great" lacks specificity!), "repeal and replace" is now a 2- to 3-year project. To ease the pain and to provide a make-believe story that hard work crafting "replace" will take place. To further cover their butts, congressional Republicans have begun talking about an insurance-company bailout scheme to come from the White House (via regulations) and to protect insurance companies from the havoc which a 2-3 year limbo and higher risk pools will create.

The Wall,Trump's standing up to the deluge of flag burnings, goofy tweets, and giant, spirited rallies will have to compensate for Trump voters, and the rest of us, downwind of this {!#%@}.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
gorgeous
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5653
Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2015 2:25 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by gorgeous » Fri Dec 02, 2016 3:38 pm

[ytube][/ytube]
Science Fundamentalism...is exactly what happens when there’s a significant, perceived ideological threat to one’s traditions and identity.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 02, 2016 6:54 pm

the return of post-modernist theory:
Diane Rehm, WAMU radio host: . . . I’m sure you’ve heard James Fallows talk about lies that Donald Trump has put out there in tweets, in things he’s said. What do you make of that?

Scottie Nell Hughes, editor of Red Alerts, CNN talking head, and Trump spokesperson: . . . On one hand, I hear half the media saying that these are lies. But on the other hand, there are many people that go ‘No it’s true.’ And so one thing that has been interesting this entire campaign season to watch, is that people that say ‘facts are facts,’— they’re not really facts.

Everybody has a way—It’s kind of like looking at ratings, or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore, as facts.

And so Mr. Trump’s tweets, amongst a certain crowd, a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some facts—amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up. . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Fri Dec 02, 2016 8:43 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:What debate they are having - whether to be the "white working class party" or the "'emerging democratic majority' party" - seems so this past year and very little future.
Good piece pushing back on some of the thinking from the Sanders Democrats (especially Bernie himself), and overly reactive Democratic responses, coming out since the election (Michelle Goldberg at SLATE has been writing in the same vein and has a number of good discussions of the issues)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34981
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Gord » Fri Dec 02, 2016 9:11 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Gord wrote: . . . Or will he have another way to divert attention . . .
Since he won't sell his business, perhaps he can use lawsuits against him - from employees, customers, contractors, competitors - as a distraction. Judging from Trump U and Pussygate, there might could be more suits. His business practices come across as being far on the shady end of things. Sexual harassment in the workplace alone should provide viewers of the Trump presidency, er, American citizens, with lots of dramatic reality TV. Plus, he's already set himself up, with his quick Trump U settlement and payoff to Carrier (e.g. Trump is threatening millions of $ of tax breaks and other incentives to businesses who dare saying they'll move jobs overseas*), as a guy who can be shaken down.
He's dredging up old nonsense that was never actually controversial to begin with, and trying to make it controversial "again". Currently it's flag burning.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26885
Joined: Thu Feb 13, 2014 4:19 pm
Custom Title: Dostawca - sciany tekstu
Location: still in Greater Tomainia

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Statistical Mechanic » Sat Dec 03, 2016 1:54 pm

Here's something weird. The final Real Clear Politics average of polls had Clinton nationally +1.9%.

Today's Cook Report tracker shows Clinton winning the popular vote by . . . 1.9%.

Image

Remember the names: Clinton, Mook, Palmieri, Pedestal, Abedin, Benenson. These smug twits brought off a near miracle, something so difficult I can still scarcely believe they did it. They managed to win the popular vote by about 2% - yet lose the election. Remarkable achievement. Give them credit.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28043
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Trump will win!

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:06 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:the return of post-modernist theory:
Diane Rehm, WAMU radio host: . . .

And so Mr. Trump’s tweets, amongst a certain crowd, a large part of the population, are truth. When he says that millions of people illegally voted, he has some facts—amongst him and his supporters, and people believe they have facts to back that up. . . .
"When he says that millions of people illegally voted...", he means those things he tends to grab... :?
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28043
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Trump will win!

Post by scrmbldggs » Sat Dec 03, 2016 3:10 pm

...and a few assorted others...
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

Matthew Ellard
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 30516
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am
Custom Title: Big Beautiful Bouncy Skeptic

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Matthew Ellard » Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:33 am

gorgeous wrote:George Clooney Video. "Trump will never be president"
You should boycott all George Clooney films and any other actor who supported Clinton for the next four years.

You should only watch movies starring ..... Hulk Hogan. ...Paul O'Neill. ...Jon Voight. ...Dennis Rodman. ...Gary Busey....Stephen Baldwin.....Mike Tyson......Ted Nugent......
:mrgreen:

User avatar
Gord
Obnoxious Weed
Posts: 34981
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: prostrate spurge
Location: Transcona

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Gord » Sun Dec 04, 2016 12:58 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
gorgeous wrote:George Clooney Video. "Trump will never be president"
You should boycott all George Clooney films and any other actor who supported Clinton for the next four years.

You should only watch movies starring ..... Hulk Hogan. ...Paul O'Neill. ...Jon Voight. ...Dennis Rodman. ...Gary Busey....Stephen Baldwin.....Mike Tyson......Ted Nugent......
:mrgreen:
Chachi, but not Joanie.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"Imagine an ennobling of what could be" -- the New Age BS Generator site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE
Is Trump in jail yet?

User avatar
Jeffk 1970
Has No Life
Posts: 12190
Joined: Tue May 31, 2016 3:00 am
Custom Title: Lost in Translation
Location: Safely stored in my own mind

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Jeffk 1970 » Sun Dec 04, 2016 1:45 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
gorgeous wrote:George Clooney Video. "Trump will never be president"
You should boycott all George Clooney films and any other actor who supported Clinton for the next four years.

You should only watch movies starring ..... Hulk Hogan. ...Paul O'Neill. ...Jon Voight. ...Dennis Rodman. ...Gary Busey....Stephen Baldwin.....Mike Tyson......Ted Nugent......
:mrgreen:
Gawd, Ted Nugent.

I always liked Nugent when I was in the mood for Neanderthal rock, something to play air guitar and howl along with my friends to after a twelve pack. I still like him for purely nostalgic purposes.

But he's such an arrogant prick and he's become damn near insufferable since the election. It's almost worth it to see the great pumpkin fail just to see Nugent shut up.
Last edited by Jeffk 1970 on Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Question for Groening by a reporter:
“Mr. Groening, what do you say to those who still deny the Holocaust?”

Groening:
“Nothing. They are hopelessly lost.”


Hhhhhhhmmmmmm, is it possible that Carlo Mattogno is the greatest scholar the world has ever known?
:lol: :lol:
viewtopic.php?f=39&t=31585&p=713843#p713843