Trump will win!

Discussions
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 » Wed Nov 16, 2016 1:44 am

gorgeous wrote: , unable to deal with the real world..
Odd words coming from a transsexual. :lol:

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 » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:23 am

gorgeous wrote:Distraught students get therapy dogs to cope with Trump's win.
Hey Gorgeous? Have you told your fellow Trump supporter, that you post links, here, to the neo-Nazi Rense Organisation & David Duke's podcasts and have direct evidence about Trump's future presidential success, from telepathic remote viewers?

Now's the time to post those links again! (You can become forum friends) :D

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Wed Nov 16, 2016 5:10 pm

Ian Hazard wrote:Bwahahaha! Riot as much as you want libtards, the game is up and you are finished. Donald Trump is a 2 term president and those who follow him will continue his good work.

America is all set to become a great country once again!


[ytube][/ytube]
Love to see one of those far right Republicans making Trump election their victory!
First of all, I would fit with the US Liberals definition, and would have voted Bernie Sanders.
I quite agree with this heart-shaped sunglass wearer about Hilary, and i have said that i would not have cast a vote for her, i would not have voted for the Carrot neither, and would probably have joined the demonstrators - although without violence - just to warn that being elected president does not mean becoming a dictator, and that it is one of the people's duty to remind all those leaders this reality. Not to contest trump's victory.

It seems now obvious that it is the independents that made Trump president, and not those silly Nazi wannabees. Dems voted Democrats at 90% and so did Reps... The good news is that there is still much more Libtards as you call them than republicans...unfortunately - although it is a matter of opinion - the independents sent a clear message: they a fed up with those political games...they want change that Donny won't probably not deliver, and the whole farce will be a 4 years episode. And there is hope that they will turn to a Bernie like candidate, next time.

As you are probably one of those fanatics hoping for some kind of cleansing of the Jewish influence, you would have noticed Trump pick for Treasury, right?...It won't happened. And i don't see Yellen losing her Job neither... Donny is a NY city businessman, those guys cannot afford to be AS, and he is most probably not... Funny how delusional you Nazi wannabees are...
By the way, your "Jewish controlled Wall Street" is in a pretty good mood, don't you think?

As for you kind of White supremacists, you were just a bunch of isolated lunatics before, just as you'll be tomorrow.

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Denying-History » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:02 pm

Does Ian know that Trump has dropped parts of his ellection campaign. Instead of completely removing Obama care he plans to revise it... After planning the wall he says he won't build it (even though he said this early in his campaign)... Shows how much good Donald will do... He will continue to revise his plan and trump himself has been a democrat for a good portion of his life.
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 16, 2016 6:08 pm

My wife and I will be in the streets so to speak this weekend protesting Trump and the neoliberal, globalist wing of the Democrats, assuming all goes to plan ...
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 16, 2016 6:18 pm

Denying-History wrote:Does Ian know that Trump has dropped parts of his ellection campaign. Instead of completely removing Obama care he plans to revise it... After planning the wall he says he won't build it (even though he said this early in his campaign)... Shows how much good Donald will do... He will continue to revise his plan and trump himself has been a democrat for a good portion of his life.
Actually, according to Kris Kobach who is on Trump transition team and possible AG, the new administration plans to build the wall and to fund it at the outset by diverting money from Homeland Security. Trump's plans for Obamacare are basically insane - they make no sense, so it is hard to know what he will do. But his latest thinking is, despite campaign pledges to retain Medicare, to convert Medicare into private insurance partially subsidized by vouchers. This should alarm his supporters actually and provides clues to what he will do with the ACA. He has also added Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist, to his transition team. Kobach is talking about some kind of Muslim register. I see the plans and operating methods very much still of a piece with his campaign.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Denying-History
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2178
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 3:01 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Denying-History » Wed Nov 16, 2016 6:43 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Does Ian know that Trump has dropped parts of his ellection campaign. Instead of completely removing Obama care he plans to revise it... After planning the wall he says he won't build it (even though he said this early in his campaign)... Shows how much good Donald will do... He will continue to revise his plan and trump himself has been a democrat for a good portion of his life.
Actually, according to Kris Kobach who is on Trump transition team and possible AG, the new administration plans to build the wall and to fund it at the outset by diverting money from Homeland Security. Trump's plans for Obamacare are basically insane - they make no sense, so it is hard to know what he will do. But his latest thinking is, despite campaign pledges to retain Medicare, to convert Medicare into private insurance partially subsidized by vouchers. This should alarm his supporters actually and provides clues to what he will do with the ACA. He has also added Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist, to his transition team. Kobach is talking about some kind of Muslim register. I see the plans and operating methods very much still of a piece with his campaign.
Trumps "wall"

Image
Trump admits that his ‘big, beautiful’ wall might actually just be a fence
https://www.google.com/amp/bgr.com/2016 ... fence/amp/
« The Terror here is a horrifying fact. There is a fear that reaches down and haunts all sections of the community. No household, however humble, apparently but what lives in constant fear of nocturnal raid by the secret police. . .This particular purge is undoubtedly political. . . It is deliberately projected by the party leaders, who themselves regretted the necessity for it. »
Joseph E. Davies

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 16, 2016 7:47 pm

Denying-History wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Does Ian know that Trump has dropped parts of his ellection campaign. Instead of completely removing Obama care he plans to revise it... After planning the wall he says he won't build it (even though he said this early in his campaign)... Shows how much good Donald will do... He will continue to revise his plan and trump himself has been a democrat for a good portion of his life.
Actually, according to Kris Kobach who is on Trump transition team and possible AG, the new administration plans to build the wall and to fund it at the outset by diverting money from Homeland Security. Trump's plans for Obamacare are basically insane - they make no sense, so it is hard to know what he will do. But his latest thinking is, despite campaign pledges to retain Medicare, to convert Medicare into private insurance partially subsidized by vouchers. This should alarm his supporters actually and provides clues to what he will do with the ACA. He has also added Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist, to his transition team. Kobach is talking about some kind of Muslim register. I see the plans and operating methods very much still of a piece with his campaign.
Trumps "wall"

< snip >
Trump admits that his ‘big, beautiful’ wall might actually just be a fence
https://www.google.com/amp/bgr.com/2016 ... fence/amp/
My two cents: Trump said in his 60 Minutes interview that some segments of the wall might better be fencing:
Lesley Stahl: They’re talking about a fence in the Republican Congress, would you accept a fence?

Donald Trump: For certain areas I would, but certain areas, a wall is more appropriate. I’m very good at this, it’s called construction.

Lesley Stahl: So part wall, part fence?

Donald Trump: Yeah, it could be – it could be some fencing.
A couple days later we have Kobach speaking about the wall on behalf of the transition team (from TPM):
Kobach also told Reuters that Trump officials are looking at a way to begin building a border wall without approval from Congress by directing the Homeland Security Department to reappropriate existing funds. He said that "that future fiscal years will require additional appropriations" to keep building the wall.
Don't get your hopes up for the return of Dem Trump, for the moderation of Trump, or for Trump pivot just yet. Trump's signing on to gut Medicare, a core program on which the middle class depends and which was enacted over 50 years ago as part of Social Security, is yet one more important signal about the direction he will take. This is a radical change long sought by Ryan and other ideologues backed by the Koch brothers.

Along with Trump's intended tax cuts, the evisceration of health care programs currently benefitting the poor and middle income groups is a part of the new administration's plan to chop off government programs that address the needs of middle Americans, to increase the wealth gap, to redistribute wealth and income further to the very rich, and to marginalize workers and middle class people further. Broad "deregulation" efforts - in banking, in environmental and climate matters, in health and safety - are another aspect of this agenda. This is what will be happening. Believe the autocrat and his minions. In this sense, Trump's program is the enhancement, with a hard line and new toughness, of the worst trends in globalization, despite the confusion many voters seemed to have about this.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Wed Nov 16, 2016 8:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 16, 2016 8:32 pm

Update: Gaffney denies he is part of transition team. OTOH, more on what Kobach is advocating for and saying in transition planning: "Trump Team Is Mulling Muslim Registry And Planning Border Wall, Reported Adviser Says"
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 17, 2016 12:17 am

I place a lot more emphasis on Trump's 60 Minutes statement, and on updates to his official website, than on what Kobach or other transition team figures say, btw. The way this transition is playing out is that, as with the campaign, Trump seems to be in charge. He sets up competition and a bit of chaos amongst his aides. In the end, his word will be decisive, and whilst we have hints about what that word will be, we don't know.

I think Trump calculates a LOT of goodwill from supporters, seeing the voters as perhaps less fickle than they are. But in the near-term he likely does have a significant amount of goodwill for whatever he does. It will take some time for disillusionment to set in if the wall doesn't provide meaning to people lives, living standards don't rapidly and dramatically increase, high paying jobs fail to materialize, manufacturing doesn't make a comeback, the elimination of trade deals doesn't bring heaven on earth, etc.

Bernie Sanders' speech at George Washington University this evening collapsed his OurRevolution.com streaming service due to the number of viewers trying to log in (according to The Grauniad).
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Real Skeptic
Posts: 28703
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Location: sometimes

Re: Trump will win!

Post by scrmbldggs » Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:35 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:...Kobach is talking about some kind of Muslim register. ...
I call on everyone under 300 lbs to register as Muh-slim.
.
Lard, save me from your followers.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 17, 2016 11:34 am

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

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5337
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: Trump will win!

Post by ElectricMonk » Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:45 pm


no surprise to anyone but Trump supporters: Steve Bannon worked at Goldman Sachs...

User avatar
OutOfBreath
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2322
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:38 pm
Custom Title: Persistent ponderer
Location: Norway

Re: Trump will win!

Post by OutOfBreath » Thu Nov 17, 2016 2:28 pm

Apparently talking to them is immoral, but hiring them is okay. Strap in folks as we head for the next deregulation bust!

Peace
Dan
What is perceived as real becomes real in its consequences.

"Every judgment teeters on the brink of error. To claim absolute knowledge is to become monstrous. Knowledge is an unending adventure at the edge of uncertainty." - Frank Herbert

User avatar
TJrandom
Has No Life
Posts: 12214
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 » Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:47 pm

Where I worked, we referred to Goldman as `The Dark Side`... sleaze aplenty there.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Paul Anthony » Thu Nov 17, 2016 5:53 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Does Ian know that Trump has dropped parts of his ellection campaign. Instead of completely removing Obama care he plans to revise it... After planning the wall he says he won't build it (even though he said this early in his campaign)... Shows how much good Donald will do... He will continue to revise his plan and trump himself has been a democrat for a good portion of his life.
Actually, according to Kris Kobach who is on Trump transition team and possible AG, the new administration plans to build the wall and to fund it at the outset by diverting money from Homeland Security. Trump's plans for Obamacare are basically insane - they make no sense, so it is hard to know what he will do. But his latest thinking is, despite campaign pledges to retain Medicare, to convert Medicare into private insurance partially subsidized by vouchers. This should alarm his supporters actually and provides clues to what he will do with the ACA. He has also added Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist, to his transition team. Kobach is talking about some kind of Muslim register. I see the plans and operating methods very much still of a piece with his campaign.
I think your sources may be questionable. He hasn't officially released any specific plans regarding a replacement for Obamacare. Anything you may have heard is most likely BS scare tactics.
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 17, 2016 7:39 pm

Indeed, my sources are Trump transition officials and The Donald: highly "questionable."

I was taking what he said on the campaign trail and in debates - "repeal and replace" - and on 60 Minutes seriously. The fact that Trump has promised to "repeal and replace" - then said maybe he'd "amend" - then went back to "repeal and replace" - and in over a year of campaigning was unable to cough up his replacement proposal should explain in part why I wrote of his plans that "they make no sense, so it is hard to know what he will do." The scare tactics here are Trump's.

Here is what DJT told Lesley Stahl about his brilliant healthcare plan:
Lesley Stahl: And there’s going to be a period if you repeal it and before you replace it, when millions of people could lose -– no?

Donald Trump: No, we’re going to do it simultaneously. It’ll be just fine. We’re not going to have, like, a two-day period and we’re not going to have a two-year period where there’s nothing. It will be repealed and replaced. And we’ll know. And it’ll be great health care for much less money. So it’ll be better health care, much better, for less money. Not a bad combination.
If you fall for this, you get what you deserve.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 17, 2016 8:29 pm

The grotesque shitgibbon plans a "victory tour"; his factotums say it will take His Holiness only to states that voted for him. National unity! I take it, then, that Chicago is out? :)
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Thu Nov 17, 2016 8:31 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Denying-History wrote:Does Ian know that Trump has dropped parts of his ellection campaign. Instead of completely removing Obama care he plans to revise it... After planning the wall he says he won't build it (even though he said this early in his campaign)... Shows how much good Donald will do... He will continue to revise his plan and trump himself has been a democrat for a good portion of his life.
Actually, according to Kris Kobach who is on Trump transition team and possible AG, the new administration plans to build the wall and to fund it at the outset by diverting money from Homeland Security. Trump's plans for Obamacare are basically insane - they make no sense, so it is hard to know what he will do. But his latest thinking is, despite campaign pledges to retain Medicare, to convert Medicare into private insurance partially subsidized by vouchers. This should alarm his supporters actually and provides clues to what he will do with the ACA. He has also added Frank Gaffney, an anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist, to his transition team. Kobach is talking about some kind of Muslim register. I see the plans and operating methods very much still of a piece with his campaign.
Trumps "wall"

< snip >
Trump admits that his ‘big, beautiful’ wall might actually just be a fence
https://www.google.com/amp/bgr.com/2016 ... fence/amp/
My two cents: Trump said in his 60 Minutes interview that some segments of the wall might better be fencing:
Lesley Stahl: They’re talking about a fence in the Republican Congress, would you accept a fence?

Donald Trump: For certain areas I would, but certain areas, a wall is more appropriate. I’m very good at this, it’s called construction.

Lesley Stahl: So part wall, part fence?

Donald Trump: Yeah, it could be – it could be some fencing.
A couple days later we have Kobach speaking about the wall on behalf of the transition team (from TPM):
Kobach also told Reuters that Trump officials are looking at a way to begin building a border wall without approval from Congress by directing the Homeland Security Department to reappropriate existing funds. He said that "that future fiscal years will require additional appropriations" to keep building the wall.
Don't get your hopes up for the return of Dem Trump, for the moderation of Trump, or for Trump pivot just yet. Trump's signing on to gut Medicare, a core program on which the middle class depends and which was enacted over 50 years ago as part of Social Security, is yet one more important signal about the direction he will take. This is a radical change long sought by Ryan and other ideologues backed by the Koch brothers.

Along with Trump's intended tax cuts, the evisceration of health care programs currently benefitting the poor and middle income groups is a part of the new administration's plan to chop off government programs that address the needs of middle Americans, to increase the wealth gap, to redistribute wealth and income further to the very rich, and to marginalize workers and middle class people further. Broad "deregulation" efforts - in banking, in environmental and climate matters, in health and safety - are another aspect of this agenda. This is what will be happening. Believe the autocrat and his minions. In this sense, Trump's program is the enhancement, with a hard line and new toughness, of the worst trends in globalization, despite the confusion many voters seemed to have about this.
I know that those a legitimate concerns.
So consider what is coming to be an attempt to kind of ease those legitimate worries.

So let's consider that it is maybe too early to call at this point.
I don't expect Trump to become the democrat he was supposed to have been once (when?), And Republicans are probably all upside down regarding the possibility to apply their crazy program. But there is this one detail that could prevent the worse. Trump is a celebrity, with celebrity reflexes, he knows very well that it is not really the GOP that won, but HIM. I don't think he will turn his back to the ones who voted for him so easily. He will already face a tough time with the opposition he is facing. He won't take the risk to face opposition from the people who just made him president. He is not stupid, especially on those matters, and he probably knows that the hard core republicans voters would not have been enough to beat Hilary.

So there is a possibility that one of his main concerns will be not to alienate his popularity among the 62 millions Americans who voted for him. In this perspective, there is a hope that the middle class will not be deprived from the little health coverage they enjoy. More likely the Obama care will be amended, with what? We'll see.

My guess is that he will leave the most difficult stuff - like the tax cuts - for later.

And start with the most easy part of his "promises", easy because of popular, that will take the form of a tougher stance on immigration: add some more "walls" or "fences" to the existing ones, hire more Border patrol.
The same way, some trade treaty might be "talked about", especially NAFTA, as talks don't hurt anyone and participate to the show.

Somehow, Trump must feel like a US lottery Jackpot winner surrounded by so called Investment Advisers popping up around him. He has a lot of catching up to do to become a president...Much of what he will do or not do will depend on the balance of powers he will managed to have between HIS HOLY PERSON and the Republican Establishment.

I still think Trump will be more a showman during the first months of his presidency, and that nothing "really bad" would take place during this time periods. What will come next depend on too many unknown that it is useless to make any prediction.

@Statmec: As i promised, i am trying to be supportive here... ;)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 17, 2016 9:32 pm

A better approach: believe the autocrat, do not be taken in by small signs of normality, institutions will not save you, be outraged, etc.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 17, 2016 11:02 pm

Trump's thought to co-opt Republicans and some Democrats, to take back the headlines: Romney for Secretary of State? It's today's rumor. (Reports are that Trump is displeased with how the Cabinet selection process is going ... and that he wants a "wow" cabinet. Establishment types are going gaga over this potential "populist" move, bringing into his Cabinet working-class hero Mitt Romney ... Trump also having had a make-out session today with Henry "Mr Peace" Kissinger is scoring lotsa points with conservatives and moderates today ... the "peace candidate" and Henry K ... )
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:18 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:A better approach: believe the autocrat, do not be taken in by small signs of normality, institutions will not save you, be outraged, etc.

Sorry to say, but although very tempting in those emotional times, Masha Gessen position is the opposite of what should be the reaction. And i hope eventually, as emotion settles a bit, those rhetoric will disappear.
It is one essential thing that people be vigilant, as they should always be, not only when a Trump appears, so this is a good thing.

But if it turns of not accepting the results, then it comes to playing the same game than your opponent.
First of all, those arguments about the popular vote has its limits, giving that U.S.A stands for Unites STATES of America, not like the UK, United Kingdom (singular). The USA are not a kingdom composed of 2 kingdoms and several duchies and principalties, but of 50 republican States. It is a federation. And the Electoral college has been thought in order to maintain it.

It is not like it was 2000 all over again. Trump won the swing States with a 5% margin, it is not like it all come to a couple of dubious votes in Florida. He won 30 States, (more than Bush in 2000 if one denies him Florida he won with what? a little more than 500 votes?).
What would be the alternative, anyway, let California and New York elect the president all by themselves? Imagine what it would be! Candidates spending their times in the most populated part of the country and neglecting the rest!
The demographic power of those States are already taken into account, as they represent 75 votes out of 270, and starts as a bonus for the Democrats.
Again, the difference here, Bush won his election due to a robbery of votes in ONE state, Florida, and won it by like 500 votes, Trump won in all the swing State by a 5% margin.
Michigan was tight but even of she'd won it, it would not been enough.
There is just no "democratic" arguments to contest Trump election, i'd wish but there are none. And to pursue the logic of popular vote to its absolute, then why not get rid of the US senate, why should all those stinky cow-boy States get 2 senators when California could have 20! Is really California ruling the federation a democratic prospect?

Just kind of love this "Surveillance of the Muslim" as if it was an outrage knowing thanks to the big traitor ( Snowden), the world has been under heavy and illegal surveillance. Now it may not been the case in the USA, but most of those bloody attacks on innocent were made by Muslims, would it not be reasonable to focus on ONE group instead of focusing on the WHOLE WORLD?

Imagine now that there would be a spread of Racist attacks in the USA, what would you want the authorities to do? Check those {!#%@} Nazis and white supremacists, right? And i guess that they are already under "special" surveillance? Now would you say, hey please check my own privacy, i am not racist but it would not be fair to check ONLY the Nazis."
In Europe, it is not scream upon the roofs, and would certainly not be part of any political program, but the heavy surveillance of the Muslims is already a done thing! A it is logical.
But wait, did Obama recall the infamous provision of the Homeland security act? Nope. Did he closed the infamous KZ Guantanamo? Nope. Did he kicked those private military firms sending mercenaries all over the place? Nope. Did he stopped the infamous privatization of the federal prisons trend? Nope.

It is just like this bloody WALL thing! Who built the 700 miles wall that exists today? Was the Border Office nicer under Clinton or Obama? HELL NO! For a foreigner, even transiting through the USA only for a few hours is a nightmare, how could that become even worse?
Deportation of illegals? Would that be new? I am still under shock that the Obama administration kicked-out 2.5 million of them? Trump is talking about 3.000.000 additional? Is that a revolution?

That being said, if the Trump election can work as a WAKE UP CALL for all those people and the leaders to rethink what a democracy should be, now there is 4 years to do that.
And maybe, let's dream, to recall the Home Security Act, to close GITMO, to stop the privatization of the Jails in the US where inmates are now fed for barely a buck a day, to stop massive surveillance by the NSA or the CIA abroad, and well let's add it, to realize that shooting a 15 years old black kid is something wrong and that indeed, Black Lives Matter...etc.

Remind you, TRUMP is a consequence NOT a cause.

But if that help people getting more vigilant than before, well that is a good thing. I would even conclude by it was about time that the people get their political conscience back, the people let go too many things before. Let's hope they do it keeping the democratic principles in mind, and that starts with the recognition of the electoral process and its results. And preventive strikes is not democratic at all.

@Statmec: this is a reaction to Misha's artical, not to your posts... ;)

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 17, 2016 11:22 pm

Who said not to accept the results?
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:30 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Trump's thought to co-opt Republicans and some Democrats, to take back the headlines: Romney for Secretary of State? It's today's rumor. (Reports are that Trump is displeased with how the Cabinet selection process is going ... and that he wants a "wow" cabinet. Establishment types are going gaga over this potential "populist" move, bringing into his Cabinet working-class hero Mitt Romney ... Trump also having had a make-out session today with Henry "Mr Peace" Kissinger is scoring lotsa points with conservatives and moderates today ... the "peace candidate" and Henry K ... )
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Bringing some Democrats? That would be new!
But bringing Romney might be a very clever move in order to deal the the GOP. Romney was left for dead after the fiasco of the StopTrump movement, but having him on his team might change the balance of power between Trump and Ryan...smart move actually, typical of the Ancient Rome... lol... But as you said, those are only rumors, but the fact that he wants a WOW cabinet is what i was expecting.

I did not know that Kessinger was still alive... :lol:

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:35 pm

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Who said not to accept the results?

Should i have said, Trump democratic legitimacy?
Then
Well
Masha, Micheal Moore and most of the protesters who are now on the streets i guess.
I can give some quotes...

Masha
More dangerously, Clinton’s and Obama’s very civil passages, which ended in applause lines, seemed to close off alternative responses to his minority victory.
What would be the alternative responses?

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 17, 2016 11:41 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Trump's thought to co-opt Republicans and some Democrats, to take back the headlines: Romney for Secretary of State? It's today's rumor. (Reports are that Trump is displeased with how the Cabinet selection process is going ... and that he wants a "wow" cabinet. Establishment types are going gaga over this potential "populist" move, bringing into his Cabinet working-class hero Mitt Romney ... Trump also having had a make-out session today with Henry "Mr Peace" Kissinger is scoring lotsa points with conservatives and moderates today ... the "peace candidate" and Henry K ... )
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Bringing some Democrats? That would be new!
You misunderstand: the thought being purveyed is that Trump will try to co-opt support from Republicans and Democrats by naming Romney. It is what certain commentators are pushing - as a way to normalize Trump. The commentary is bizarre: they've forgotten who Romney is and whom he spoke for and what voters had to say about him in '12.
Balsamo wrote:the fact that he wants a WOW cabinet is what i was expecting.
Jesus, he is Trump. Who is surprised by this?
Balsamo wrote:I did not know that Kessinger was still alive... :lol:
And not in prison or exile ...
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 17, 2016 11:46 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Who said not to accept the results?
Should i have said, Trump democratic legitimacy?
No, it would have been just as far-fetched. So, who made this argument? You are beating strawmen about the head quite soundly these days.
Balsamo wrote:Then
Well
Masha, Micheal Moore and most of the protesters who are now on the streets i guess.
I can give some quotes...
Some of them, I suppose. Mostly they are pissed and worried. The overall purpose of the protests, from the literature I receive, is to rally people to fight back on a host of issues. People are not trying to overturn the election results.
Balsamo wrote:Masha
More dangerously, Clinton’s and Obama’s very civil passages, which ended in applause lines, seemed to close off alternative responses to his minority victory.
What would be the alternative responses?
Protest against what Trump has promised to do, hold his feet to the fire, resist encroachments on civil liberties, pushback on legislation like what's proposed for healthcare, oppose racism, defend the rights of immigrants, expose and fight against extralegal use of police powers and against war crimes, defend freedom of the press and other constitutional guarantees. Like Gessen says in her article. It's hardly a mystery.

Just because someone won an election, people don't change all their political views, stop trying to win support for them, and stop advocacy for what they think is right.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Paul Anthony » Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:25 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:Who said not to accept the results?
Just all those people rioting...excuse me, "demonstrating" in the streets of many major cities. ;)
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Paul Anthony
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2783
Joined: Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:23 pm
Custom Title: The other god
Location: The desert

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Paul Anthony » Fri Nov 18, 2016 12:29 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:
Some of them, I suppose. Mostly they are pissed and worried. The overall purpose of the protests, from the literature I receive, is to rally people to fight back on a host of issues. People are not trying to overturn the election results.
So...all the "Not my President" signs mean something else?

(I especially liked the "No es MY Presidente" signs. Well, duh, of course he's not your Presidente. Your Presidente is in Mexico.)
People who say ALWAYS and NEVER are usually wrong, part of the time.
Science answers questions, Philosophy questions answers.
Make sense, not war.

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 18, 2016 1:51 am

Paul Anthony wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:Who said not to accept the results?
Just all those people rioting...excuse me, "demonstrating" in the streets of many major cities. ;)
Ignorant fool. I explained above why they are protesting. In my city, they have had widespread support, there's been no property damage and there have been no arrests. Your equation of protesting, a right protected in the Constitution, with rioting is repugnant.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 18, 2016 1:57 am

Paul Anthony wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote:
Balsamo wrote:
Some of them, I suppose. Mostly they are pissed and worried. The overall purpose of the protests, from the literature I receive, is to rally people to fight back on a host of issues. People are not trying to overturn the election results.
So...all the "Not my President" signs mean something else?

(I especially liked the "No es MY Presidente" signs. Well, duh, of course he's not your Presidente. Your Presidente is in Mexico.)
Why Mexico? Do you know anything about immigration? Or are you just unnerved by someone who speaks Spanish?

As I said, some people demonstrating likely don't want to accept the results ("Some of them, I suppose" is what I wrote and what you quoted!) ... but most accept the results, are pissed off about them, are doing some soul searching about the results, and have been protesting as I described. These "riots," as you call them in order to discredit them (btw I've always supported the right of Tea Party members and others to protest Obama, because unlike Trump's flacks I'm not afflicted with either a double standard or authoritarian impulses) seem to have been last week's story.

And like I said, as Balsamo was replying to Masha Gessen, she didn't make any such point.

Some college-age kid yelling "Not my President" is IMO a lesser problem to a grotesque, wealthy orange stomach with an anus mouth spouting birtherism and refusing to commit to accepting the election results. Your selective outrage makes you an unserious poster.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 18, 2016 2:15 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote:I place a lot more emphasis on Trump's 60 Minutes statement, and on updates to his official website, than on what Kobach or other transition team figures say, btw.
Despite Kobach speaking to the media, repeatedly, on behalf the transition team, the Trump team tonight has stated that Kobach was never on the transition team and that Trump himself (despite footage of his doing so) has never advocated for a Muslim registry!
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Jeff_36
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5240
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 » Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:21 am

Statistical Mechanic wrote: Trump also having had a make-out session today with Henry "Mr Peace" Kissinger is scoring lotsa points with conservatives and moderates today ... the "peace candidate" and Henry K ... )
Kissinger strikes me as someone who would (rightfully) have great disdain for Trump and who would have likely run intellectual circles around him even at the age of 93. I doubt very much that the meeting went well. Say what you will about Dr. K but he was no dummy.

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 3:36 am

Protest against what Trump has promised to do, hold his feet to the fire, resist encroachments on civil liberties, pushback on legislation like what's proposed for healthcare, expose and fight against extralegal use of police powers and against war crimes, defend freedom of the press and other constitutional guarantees. Like she says in her article.
Masha wrote this referring to Hilary and Obama's speeches after Trump's election, at least in her text.

She added:
Both Clinton’s and Obama’s phrases about the peaceful transfer of power concealed the omission of a call to action.
Action for what? If not to contest Trump legitimacy...at this stage.

Now among other things i have heard:
There is a petition to reform the electoral college (and i have explained why i don't find it really democratic)
There is a call of the Grand Elector Not to follow the popular vote in their State to "respect" the Vote of the "Majority of the voters"...
There are also call for demonstrations to {!#%@} up the inauguration date in January...

This is what i meant when i said that preventive strikes are not a democratic way to deal with politic.

So when you say:
Protest against what Trump has promised to do, hold his feet to the fire, resist encroachments on civil liberties, pushback on legislation like what's proposed for healthcare, oppose racism, defend the rights of immigrants, expose and fight against extralegal use of police powers and against war crimes, defend freedom of the press and other constitutional guarantees.
All i am saying is that democracy requires HIM to make the first move. But hey, he is not even president yet!!!!!!!!!
Of course, resist encroachments on civil liberties, but wait until he does.
Of course, resist on attacks on the healthcare system, but again, wait until he does

And when it comes to Racism, war crimes, constitutional guarantees...Of course, but this should have taken place twenty years ago up until now...while Trump is not even president. And of course, those are the fights that are worth leading WHOEVER lives in the White House.

And as i said, i would be part of the demonstrations if i were US citizens, up to a certain point. But i would still disagree with Masha. She goes far beyond that. And if those legitimate protest of anger were to be taken over in some pure political strategy of nihilism, well i would go back home right away.

Trump is not anything like Putin...YET.
Wait until he tends to show some proofs that he is becoming a PUTIN and then act...That is the democratic way to go.
There is still a long way to go until America becomes Russia for Christ sake...

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 18, 2016 12:03 pm

Jeff_36 wrote:
Statistical Mechanic wrote: Trump also having had a make-out session today with Henry "Mr Peace" Kissinger is scoring lotsa points with conservatives and moderates today ... the "peace candidate" and Henry K ... )
Kissinger strikes me as someone who would (rightfully) have great disdain for Trump and who would have likely run intellectual circles around him even at the age of 93. I doubt very much that the meeting went well. Say what you will about Dr. K but he was no dummy.
They are said to be long-time friends.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 18, 2016 12:56 pm

Balsamo wrote:
Protest against what Trump has promised to do, hold his feet to the fire, resist encroachments on civil liberties, pushback on legislation like what's proposed for healthcare, expose and fight against extralegal use of police powers and against war crimes, defend freedom of the press and other constitutional guarantees. Like she says in her article.
Masha wrote this referring to Hilary and Obama's speeches after Trump's election, at least in her text.

She added:
Both Clinton’s and Obama’s phrases about the peaceful transfer of power concealed the omission of a call to action.
Action for what?
I already told you.

You are trying to identify "protest" or "call to action" with non-acceptance of the election results or overturning of the election results. That dog won't hunt. What you're doing, in fact, is undermining to constitutional guarantees we enjoy, and which Trump enjoys threatening - by making protest synonymous with insurrection or subversion.
Balsamo wrote:If not to contest Trump legitimacy...at this stage.
And this is not what I told you. Did you read Gessen's article? Nowhere does she call for people to overturn the election results.

So that you cannot keep distorting things, here is some more of what Gessen wrote on this score:
Rule #6: Remember the future. Nothing lasts forever. Donald Trump certainly will not, and Trumpism, to the extent that it is centered on Trump’s persona, will not either. Failure to imagine the future may have lost the Democrats this election. They offered no vision of the future to counterbalance Trump’s all-too-familiar white-populist vision of an imaginary past. They had also long ignored the strange and outdated institutions of American democracy that call out for reform—like the electoral college, which has now cost the Democratic Party two elections in which Republicans won with the minority of the popular vote. That should not be normal. But resistance—stubborn, uncompromising, outraged—should be.
Gessen's point concerns the frame of mind she considers appropriate. No matter how hard you try making Gessen say what you want her to have said, she doesn't.
Balsamo wrote:Now among other things i have heard:
There is a petition to reform the electoral college (and i have explained why i don't find it really democratic)
So what? There are arguments pro and con. There are periodic ruckuses about the electoral college. Most Americans find it antiquated, but so what? In any event, that petition is for the future, not to overturn the 2016 election results. So you're presenting evidence that has nothing to do with your claim.
Balsamo wrote:There is a call of the Grand Elector Not to follow the popular vote in their State to "respect" the Vote of the "Majority of the voters"...
So what? The electors are free to do so, and at least one elector before the voting declared he would do so. Again, you're presenting evidence that has nothing to do with your claim.
Balsamo wrote:There are also call for demonstrations to {!#%@} up the inauguration date in January...
So what? Do you know any American history? You seem to have vast blind spots.

Anyway, the Constitution gives people in this country the right to protest. It doesn't give people the right to disrupt businesses, prevent people from normal activity, etc. Sometimes protesters who rally against this, that, and the other break the law - usually in trifling ways that the police forgive, sometimes not in trifling ways. "Crazies" often attach themselves to all manner of protests and use them for their own purposes. Protest organizers try to separate out and isolate "crazies." Also, the state has police powers, and muscle, to deal with such things.

Right now, organizers of the inauguration protests are negotiating with Washington police and the National Park Service on permits, routes, etc. The authorities, as was the case at the DNC, hope to shunt the protests far from the official proceedings (in this case at a distance from the inaugural parade), whilst protesters argue that the parade route is public space in which people should be free to exercise constitutional rights.

Protest organizers have been stating that connecting rallies to electoral planning is key to their strategy at this point (this wasn't always true, e.g., Occupy). Announced goals include pressuring Congress on the ACA and opposition to misogyny. There are other goals, too. I've not seen a single announcement calling for overturn of the election results (I'm on all kinds of "cause" mailing lists). I am sure someone somewhere will make noise about the election result or that crazies will urge smashing capitalism. Again, so what?

Are you really so prissy?

Btw my wife and I plan to be there, as I participated in the Nixon Counter-Inaugural in 1968.
Balsamo wrote:This is what i meant when i said that preventive strikes are not a democratic way to deal with politic.
I do not know what a "preventive strike" in this context might be. It sounds like you're using a scary term to undermine First Amendment rights.

In the US, contrary to what you think, protesting, speaking, writing, assembling, and advocating are absolutely cornerstones of the "democratic way."
Balsamo wrote:So when you say:
Protest against what Trump has promised to do, hold his feet to the fire, resist encroachments on civil liberties, pushback on legislation like what's proposed for healthcare, oppose racism, defend the rights of immigrants, expose and fight against extralegal use of police powers and against war crimes, defend freedom of the press and other constitutional guarantees.
All i am saying is that democracy requires HIM to make the first move. But hey, he is not even president yet!!!!!!!!!
First, it does not have any such requirement. Where do you come up with such a notion? Why should the DJT have special rights in this regard?

Second, you pretend that the man has no history, that there has not been a presidential campaign, that the orange shitgibbon said nothing during the campaign. Trump has made the first moves already.

I won't pretend those things.
Balsamo wrote:Of course, resist encroachments on civil liberties, but wait until he does.
Why? He has made threats against constitutional rights and civil liberties and has promised to take actions that violate international law - what on earth can be undemocratic about communicating extreme opposition to what he's proposed and pledged?
Balsamo wrote:Of course, resist on attacks on the healthcare system, but again, wait until he does
Why? He has promised to do get rid of the ACA and and now signs on to abolishing Medicare without telling people what he will do about healthcare - what on earth can be undemocratic about communicating extreme opposition to such ideas as well as to the fear he is trying to instill in people who depend on these services?
Balsamo wrote:And when it comes to Racism, war crimes, constitutional guarantees...Of course, but this should have taken place twenty years ago up until now...while Trump is not even president. And of course, those are the fights that are worth leading WHOEVER lives in the White House.
Bush's 1st inaugural was met with protests over such issues as well as over the Supreme Court decision in the Florida recount. Nor can you disconnect Trump from that which he's engaged in - overt racism and appeals to white nationalism, endorsement of war crimes, etc.

Further, it is totally antithetical to the US Constitution to disallow protest and free speech based on the content of that speech (hate speech and "clear and present danger" excepted), substance, or issue involved.

I really have no idea where you're going but you sound like a timid soul indeed. Very concerned for poor Donald's sensibilities and plans.
Balsamo wrote:And as i said, i would be part of the demonstrations if i were US citizens, up to a certain point.
Then what in heck are you wittering on about?
Balsamo wrote:But i would still disagree with Masha. She goes far beyond that. And if those legitimate protest of anger were to be taken over in some pure political strategy of nihilism, well i would go back home right away.
Except you've not shown that. Gessen outlines reasons to be concerned and outraged about Trump's winning the presidency and explains why greeting his presidency with cooperation is not, in her opinion, wise.
Balsamo wrote:Trump is not anything like Putin...YET.
Gessen explains that American political culture is different to Russia's and that there are differences between the two. She focuses, however, on warning signs with Trump and, based on what he has shown, the wisdom of adopting a stance of vigilance and outrage. And she makes the point that political culture and the law are different beasts - and that relying on the political culture is a risky strategy with a would-be autocrat.
Balsamo wrote:Wait until he tends to show some proofs that he is becoming a PUTIN and then act...That is the democratic way to go.
As I've tried to explain, it actually isn't undemocratic to speak against and for things whenever people wish to. Throughout this you have conflated "not accepting the election result" with opposition and protest. People protested the man's candidacy and campaign fss.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 18, 2016 1:35 pm

On your refrain that people have some "democratic" requirement to wait to see what The Donald goes for, let's take just one (important) issue.

"Repeal and replace" Obamacare is running into congressional difficulties precisely because of what I wrote earlier - they have no "replace" plan.

But Ryan's plan to privatize Medicare is possibly, according to key committee members' and other Republicans' statements, moving up the ladder. Josh Marshall at TPM writes about this, "The argument for doing it early, however, is to act before opposition to Medicare Phaseout gains steam." In other words, GOP leadership wants to present the country with a fait accompli, by moving fast before their opponents on this issue get organized and marshall public opinion against the GOP plan. In a nutshell, this is why people have to make opposition known before plans go through. It is so straightforward and obvious a tactic that I feel certain you are trying to say something other than what it sounds like you're saying.

The second piece of this is more complex. A number of Republican leaders realize that they need Democratic cover for phasing out Medicare - that is, they don't want the GOP to face voter reaction on this. So they're trying to enlist Democratic support and behind the scenes a lot of activity on this front is taking place. This speaks to acting now AND to a strategy of not cooperating with the GOP and White House on such plans, the second point another one pounded hard by Gessen.

By extension, Jeff Sessions - rejected by the Senate for a federal judgeship on account of his overt racism - is one of the leading candidates for AG. If people don't oppose such nominees, and if Democrats "go along" with them, they are acting IMO irresponsibly. There's no need to wait to see if Sessions is a good idea or not. Same with Islamophobes like Flynn, Kobach, and others. Or neocons like Bolton. And so on . . .
. . . all right we are two nations . . .

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:44 pm

Statmec:

You must be confusing with what other posters wrote. When i wrote about some people refusing to accept the results, i was not thinking about the people in the streets, but about some "ideas" found in some declarations and articles, like Masha's one.

And yes i did read the article, i am just not focusing on the same parts of it.
I gave you the quote, here again:
More dangerously, Clinton’s and Obama’s very civil passages, which ended in applause lines, seemed to close off alternative responses to his minority victory.
The context of this quote is the reactions and the speeches of both Clinton and Obama after Trump's win. Masha considers those fair-play speeches as dangerous because they seem to CLOSE OF alternative responses to Trump MINORITY WIN.
Again this statement refers to the reactions by liberals personalities like Warren and Sanders who recognize the electoral process and promote and "Wait and See" attitude.
This is the attitude Masha considers wrong! because Trump is not a "normal" politician, so what would be good if he was a "normal" politician - wonder if she would have considered Ted Cruz as a normal one? - It is not good in Trump's case.

Then she promotes her call for action. And basically her reasons - the same for why she does not agree with the personalities mentioned above - is that Trump is not a normal candidate but a Hilter (allusion to Chamberlain's speech) or an Putin, and not a "normal political opponent", and insisting on the minority win which in this case is more than debatable.

I am not arguing on Masha core arguments - although there is a lot to be said on her silly comparisons - and i would say she has the right to express them.
But the problem is that she is selling unfounded FEAR and therefore has the potential to give the Actions she is calling for a rather nasty look, maybe more violent than what would be preferable...we will see. She is surfing on emotions here.

Again, i am not targeting those who are in the streets right now, although i would prefer see signs saying " We'll be watching you", "America is democracy", "Demos = people"

Statmec:
Why? He has made threats against constitutional rights and civil liberties and has promised to take actions that violate international law - what on earth can be undemocratic about communicating extreme opposition to what he's proposed and pledged?
Right, he said many stupid things, some incoherent ones, and even some imbecilic ones. But since then should one believe everything a candidate promises?

Statmec:
Why? He has promised to do get rid of the ACA and and now signs on to abolishing Medicare without telling people what he will do about healthcare - what on earth can be undemocratic about communicating extreme opposition to such ideas as well as to the fear he is trying to instill in people who depend on these services?
Why? Because it is waste of energy. Because - while there is of course nothing wrong in communicating opposition - it is still a lot of effort and energy based on anticipation of something that has not materialized yet. There is a risk then that when the moment of real threat appear, there will be a loss of stamina in the fight.
There is also a risk to alienate a part of the country acting too soon or in anticipation, while when the time comes unity in the fight will be needed.
Action in fear is less effective than action against facts!
Among other reasons.
I have never contested the constitutional right to lead such action.
Bush's 1st inaugural was met with protests over such issues as well as over the Supreme Court decision in the Florida recount. Nor can you disconnect Trump from that which he's engaged in - overt racism and appeals to white nationalism, endorsement of war crimes, etc.
Yes, Bush first election was one of the most important democratic scandal of all time! Then, there was a clear path to overturn rightfully this election. I was the first shocked by the lack of fighting by Al Gore, who i really liked, as it was obvious for the whole world.
But this is not the case today, in an electoral perspective.
Then what in heck are you wittering on about?
Again, as what i wrote was in reaction to Gessen's article and not on the demonstrations, on some of the arguments behind them, not on their motivation.
But i guess that it is my right to disagree with her arguments as it is to disprove how some want to - how do you say that - direct people's anger.
Except you've not shown that. Gessen outlines reasons to be concerned and outraged about Trump's winning the presidency and explains why greeting his presidency with cooperation is not, in her opinion, wise.
Precisely, my opinion being that her arguments to support the protests are not wise.
You called this article a "Better approach" and i disagree. So it seems that we disagree on that, and it does not provoke any anger on my part.

So yes, i would have liked some more reflections, thoughts on how the american society came to that situation, that the problems raised by Trump elections would be addressed with a little more rationality and less emotion which led some authors to blame the whole world but themselves.
Just as is the reduction of the 61,610,484 (still counting) people who voted for Trump as Racist, misogynist or Hitlerite, Putinists, etc. There is also a message that has been sent and this message needs to be listened to, this bloody election is a consequence of what has become our democracies, not only in America as this is a global phenomenon.

I would not have bet a dime on the fact that America would be the first to fall in the pit, but then, Europe is next on the list, and i am not happy about that at all, but truth is that we all share a part of responsibility is what is happening in the western world, some more than others.
Gessen explains that American political culture is different to Russia's and that there are differences between the two. She focuses, however, on warning signs with Trump and, based on what he has shown, the wisdom of adopting a stance of vigilance and outrage. And she makes the point that political culture and the law are different beasts - and that relying on the political culture is a risky strategy with a would-be autocrat.
You are free to understand her your way, of course.
I just have a different reading: She is personifying the problem, it is all about Trump, and i am not American but if i would i would be kind of offended by the idea that "our" institutions, historic democratic culture, etc are worth nothing just because of one GUY.

I read someone who wants to raise fear to an extreme: "don't be fooled by normality", "every stupid things he had said is going to happen", "Be outraged", "the institutions" or "American culture of freedom" won't be any help, etc. Reducing all the positive factor that could have effect on Trump president, comparing them - while gently agreeing that it is not the same - to countries like Turkey, Poland, Russia, 30's Germany...Come on! It is absurd beyond words. Most obvious, none of those countries had any democratic culture, none, and still don't have any.

She speaks about TRUMPISM as if it was a well defined new political doctrine when in fact is is an amalgams of populist BS.
Controlling the press? really. The press today is controlled by multi-billions corporation, world groups! this is just crazy. States do not control the press since the late 70's, they sometimes finds accommodations, but as i said, CNN supported Clinton, that does not mean that Clinton controlled CNN.

Now, if she is right and our societies are so {!#%@} up that there are no stronger as Turkey's, Poland's or Russia's ones? Who is responsible for this?
What does she wants us to do in the first place, to demonstrate non stop for the next 4 years? Starting now when the guy is not even president?
Those should be two different fights:
Protesters are in the street to WARN Trump not to play with the democracy, and that is a good thing.
The next step will or could be to actually defend the democracy.
These should not be mixed into one global emotional "outrage" starting now. To do so would be to contribute to the divisions that is rotting America ( and Europe), and to lose the stamina that maybe will be urgently needed next year.

Again, i have never said that those demonstrations were undemocratic, you are confusing me with another poster, what i am saying is that the "democratic tools" at disposal should be used wisely and with thoughts, and not wasted on emotional grounds.
So what? Do you know any American history? You seem to have vast blind spots.
Don't be too insulting, my friend, again you are referring to something i did not say.
I am very aware that demonstrations took place at inauguration day. But there is a difference between demonstrating, rallying and sabotaging. Well, as you said, it all depend on the organizers, but some fears in this case are legitimate given the nature of the rallying call. But let's see how it turns out, we all hope that there will be no excesses. Right now, the current mood can give some concerns.
Btw my wife and I plan to be there, as I participated in the Nixon Counter-Inaugural in 1968.
And rightly so!
But the context is a bit different, isn't it. HRC has not been shot, and there is no Vietnam war killing american youth.

Once and for all, i do not deny the right to demonstrate, i urge to use it wisely.

User avatar
Balsamo
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2099
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:29 pm

Re: Trump will win!

Post by Balsamo » Fri Nov 18, 2016 6:48 pm

Statmec:
By extension, Jeff Sessions - rejected by the Senate for a federal judgeship on account of his overt racism - is one of the leading candidates for AG. If people don't oppose such nominees, and if Democrats "go along" with them, they are acting IMO irresponsibly.
Just read that in the french press. A disgrace!
Here you have the first good reason. This nomination is to be opposed!

User avatar
Statistical Mechanic
Real Skeptic
Posts: 27737
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 Nov 18, 2016 11:00 pm

Balsamo wrote:Statmec:

You must be confusing with what other posters wrote. When i wrote about some people refusing to accept the results, i was not thinking about the people in the streets, but about some "ideas" found in some declarations and articles, like Masha's one.

And yes i did read the article, i am just not focusing on the same parts of it.
I gave you the quote, here again:
More dangerously, Clinton’s and Obama’s very civil passages, which ended in applause lines, seemed to close off alternative responses to his minority victory.
Again, she never wrote what you claim. You've not been able to point out where she did. The bit you quote above does not say what you try having it say.

Your reluctance to conceive of any "alternative responses" other than infantile refusal to accept the election results is not a problem with Gessen's essay but with your imagination. Gessen's article goes through particular issues, making no mention of rejecting the results, and frames a less cooperative, conciliatory alternative path to what Obama (wishing him success, saying Trump will do fine), Clinton, Sanders, Warren, and a few others - in contrast to Ron Wyden, for example - have done.
Balsamo wrote:The context of this quote is the reactions and the speeches of both Clinton and Obama after Trump's win. Masha considers those fair-play speeches as dangerous because they seem to CLOSE OF alternative responses to Trump MINORITY WIN.
Again this statement refers to the reactions by liberals personalities like Warren and Sanders who recognize the electoral process and promote and "Wait and See" attitude.
This is the attitude Masha considers wrong!
And - guess what? - so do I for the reasons already explained.

I specifically disagree with Warren and Sanders both of whom - to take one example - seem overly enamored of Trump's infrastructure plan, which IMO is way off base. Also it is to normalize a movement leader like Trump to act offer support on favorite issues.
Balsamo wrote:insisting on the minority win which in this case is more than debatable.
Mentioning a fact in passing is not "insisting."
Balsamo wrote:But the problem is that she is selling unfounded FEAR and therefore has the potential to give the Actions she is calling for a rather nasty look, maybe more violent than what would be preferable...we will see. She is surfing on emotions here.
You are. You ignore the context and background. We know about Republican plans and we have heard much from Trump.
Balsamo wrote:]Again, i am not targeting those who are in the streets right now, although i would prefer see signs saying " We'll be watching you", "America is democracy", "Demos = people"
There are many, many signs and slogans at these rallies - and IIRC Slate listed and graded them. The point isn't protests, rallies, demos - it is communicating bounds, frames, opposition. Building opposition. Being prepared - not being taken in.
Balsamo wrote:
Why? He has made threats against constitutional rights and civil liberties and has promised to take actions that violate international law - what on earth can be undemocratic about communicating extreme opposition to what he's proposed and pledged?
Right, he said many stupid things, some incoherent ones, and even some imbecilic ones. But since then should one believe everything a candidate promises?
Another of your strawmen. The point is to credit where Trump is coming from, not to believe in each and every promise, and also to warn against wishful, deluded thinking about him. Conciliation. Normalization. There will be tremendous pressure from the press, and on the press (Trump has promised this) to convert Trump into an intriguing, inspiring, interesting figure who is, after all, happily our new president ...
Balsamo wrote:
Why? He has promised to do get rid of the ACA and and now signs on to abolishing Medicare without telling people what he will do about healthcare - what on earth can be undemocratic about communicating extreme opposition to such ideas as well as to the fear he is trying to instill in people who depend on these services?
Why? Because it is waste of energy.
Your tactical appraisal is not related to your starting claim about nonacceptance of the result. But it is not a waste of time. If opponents of destruction of Medicare do not get organized, and do not rally potential allies, Medicare will be gone before they have a chance to react.
Balsamo wrote:it is still a lot of effort and energy based on anticipation of something that has not materialized yet. There is a risk then that when the moment of real threat appear, there will be a loss of stamina in the fight.
Pay closer attention. The radical right and Trump did not appear out of thin air.
Balsamo wrote:first election was one of the most important democratic scandal of all time! Then, there was a clear path to overturn rightfully this election. I was the first shocked by the lack of fighting by Al Gore, who i really liked, as it was obvious for the whole world.
But this is not the case today, in an electoral perspective.
Again, the thrust of the opposition is not to change election results. Not a single "cause" email I've received calls for that. The purpose is to communicate and prepare opposition to the direction Trump ran on and says he wants to take the country.
Balsamo wrote:what i wrote was in reaction to Gessen's article and not on the demonstrations, on some of the arguments behind them, not on their motivation.
But i guess that it is my right to disagree with her arguments as it is to disprove how some want to - how do you say that - direct people's anger.
You brought up that the demonstrations are a kind of sabotage of the process - attributing to them, for example, the false goal of "{!#%@} up" the inauguration. So, yes, I replied to that misnomer.

Of course but you keep mischaracterizing her argument in order to disagee with it. Which is also your right! So, to be clear, Gessen's argument is to use a variety of means - I took her focus to be electoral, legislative, and persuasive - to push back against the expressed direction in which Trump wants to lead.
Balsamo wrote:to support the protests are not wise.
You called this article a "Better approach" and i disagree. So it seems that we disagree on that, and it does not provoke any anger on my part.
But you alleged that Gessen argues against accepting the election results! She didn't. That was the first point of discussion.

As to the rest; she wrote an article on orientation toward Trump'a win, not an analysis of American society. Fss.
Balsamo wrote:I just have a different reading: She is personifying the problem, it is all about Trump, and i am not American but if i would i would be kind of offended by the idea that "our" institutions, historic democratic culture, etc are worth nothing just because of one GUY.
Another strawman. Nor is she personifying the problem by discussing how Trump wishes to lead and the direction of his movement.
Balsamo wrote:Reducing all the positive factor that could have effect on Trump president, comparing them - while gently agreeing that it is not the same - to countries like Turkey, Poland, Russia, 30's Germany...Come on! It is absurd beyond words. Most obvious, none of those countries had any democratic culture, none, and still don't have any.
Which is a major point Gessen makes.

You and I simply judge Trump differently. I think he is exceptional in US politics. And I don't see how this will go well.
Balsamo wrote:What does she wants us to do in the first place, to demonstrate non stop for the next 4 years? Starting now when the guy is not even president?
Those should be two different fights:
Protesters are in the street to WARN Trump not to play with the democracy, and that is a good thing.
The next step will or could be to actually defend the democracy.
I took her main target to be the Democratic Party, not protest in the streets. To mount a vigorous defense of equality under the law, civil liberties, etc over the long haul and without illusions. I will have to re-read the piece because maybe I missed something. But I don't doubt that sustained activity is well advised.
Balsamo wrote:These should not be mixed into one global emotional "outrage" starting now. To do so would be to contribute to the divisions that is rotting America ( and Europe), and to lose the stamina that maybe will be urgently needed next year.
Alternative - acquiesce? Let the far right's 8 years of obstruction win without a whimper?
Balsamo wrote:Again, i have never said that those demonstrations were undemocratic, you are confusing me with another poster, what i am saying is that the "democratic tools" at disposal should be used wisely and with thoughts, and not wasted on emotional grounds.
No I am replying to just what you wrote. Which was this: "All i am saying is that democracy requires HIM to make the first move." And: "i said that preventive strikes are not a democratic way to deal with politic." Your points strike me as 1) undermining constitutional guarantees (equating protest with sabotage) and 2) strangely one-sided (I don't recall your writing like this about Trump's racist campaign to undermine Obama, or the Tea Party's).
Balsamo wrote:
So what? Do you know any American history? You seem to have vast blind spots.
Don't be too insulting, my friend, again you are referring to something i did not say.
I am very aware that demonstrations took place at inauguration day. But there is a difference between demonstrating, rallying and sabotaging. Well, as you said, it all depend on the organizers, but some fears in this case are legitimate given the nature of the rallying call. But let's see how it turns out, we all hope that there will be no excesses. Right now, the current mood can give some concerns.
Sorry but your posts seem to miss a lot of important points about American history. I don't know what you're aware of and what you're not aware of. Protest and opposition are normal in American political culture. It is the campaign which Trump ran that is not. You seem to have inverted the two.

And, no, "all" doesn't depend on the organizers. It depends on protecting constitutional rights. The rallying cries of the opposition have not been excessive (so what if they are?).

I do object to your equation of opposition and sabotage - after 8 full and ugly years of racist obstruction by the party that won, you seem more upset about a few 1000s of people raising their voices (sabotage, not a democratic way) than by what Trump's movement has explored and threatened. Btw just the threats (against social services, against Muslims and African Americans, against the press, against dissenters) are an intimidation tactic - they are not idle words, they are not meant to be idle words.
Balsamo wrote:But the context is a bit different, isn't it. HRC has not been shot, and there is no Vietnam war killing american youth.
I didn't say that the context was the same but again you seem confused on the history. Nixon hadn't presided over killing in Vietnam before his election.

But also Trump has explicitly threatened his political opponent with prison. All Nixon said was he had a secret plan to end the war - many of us didn't trust him. But Trump has been specific - I'd prefer going on his movement's record than your wishful thoughts.
Last edited by Statistical Mechanic on Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:29 pm, edited 3 times in total.
. . . all right we are two nations . . .