[Coltaine -]

A friend just wrote me that Sarah Palin will get the Energy-Ressort. I don't know if this is a bad joke as I have no motivation to check the news. Too depressing.

My last hope is that at least the majority in the congress isn't crazy. But I fear they will agree to a lot of points. Like there is no manmade climate change, we need more coal powerplants, lets scrap the deal with Iran, no need for a two-state solution, ...

Sorry USA, but I'm hoping he will either be filibustered for the next four years or messes things up that badly in his first few months that they have to replace him.

[HoosierDaddy]

Khellendros, on 09 November 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

Apt, on 09 November 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

I think there's a big chance that all the crazy shit Trump will pull will never make it past voting in Congress or the Senate. In essence you will have a clown of a president and nothing will really change. People will continue to be outraged. Another election comes around and once again people will predict the end of the world if [Republican/Democrat] becomes the president.

Republicans, I believe, now have control of both Senate and House of Reps as well as the presidency. What will win out for the establishment Republicans? Their dislike of Trump, or their hatred of anything at all proposed by Democrats? I do wonder to what extent they will vote through policies for the simple reason that they will be something the Dems will be against.

Cloture rules are harder than that. It neds 60 senators to vote to close a cloture (filibuster). It's why the Senate is the Democrats stop-gap.

[Aptorian]

HoosierDaddy, on 09 November 2016 - 09:38 AM, said:

Apt, on 09 November 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

Tapper, on 09 November 2016 - 08:53 AM, said:

Apt, on 09 November 2016 - 08:22 AM, said:

HoosierDaddy, on 09 November 2016 - 08:07 AM, said:

Apt, on 09 November 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

So, I've been staying out of this thread for months because US policts doesn't really interest me that much, but... Is the above hyperbole the common opinion of the Malazan Empire?

You seriously think the economy is going to tank? That abortions are going to be abolished? That the justice system is going to be dismantled, etc? You're all acting like the sky is falling.

Don't you see any similarities between your predictions of the election (Trump has no chance) and your predictions of what's going to happen in the next 4 years? (The world is ending)

Trump is a business man. He's going to run the White House like the Chairman of the Board. He'll have head hunters that will select the best people (He has The Best People), who are most likely to create political profit and who will make him look good. IE competent people who will make sure the country doesn't hit an iceberg.

Personally I think it's fascinating that Trump is almost certainly your next president. Maybe he's going to fail but at least you're going to try something different for 4 years.

Lots of things that are easy to say if you don't live here.

I'm kind of surprised that you aren't worried by this. Do you want a Russian puppet as the AMERICAN president? For real?

Trump is the Huey Long of the 21st century and he WON.

You should be afraid.

Please America is more scary than Russia. You guys invade other countries and torture people and call it just but somehow Russia is the bad guys.

There are no good guys. Just different shades of shit. Trump is at least a new flavor of bulls hit. One that doesn't try to conceal the smell.

America got a new president and life goes on. You still have a Congress and Senate that keeps the country running.

Uh, Apt? The country that tortures people, doesn't respect the freedom of speech, invaded (overtly or covertly) multiple countries over the last decade with the plan of staying there is Russia. By no means do I want to sound supportive of ill-thought off Western interventions such as Libya and Syria, and the Afghanistan and Iraq wars were major mistakes (as most wars of revanchism are), but it wasn't intended as conquest.
Russia has a collapsing economy, an autocrat president with ambition, a modernized army and over a decade of state press. Coupled with a an unknown entity in charge of the biggest coalition member opposite them and you're looking at the ingredients of a fuck-up.

Sure all of that is terrible, horrible shit. However I don't see the rest of the world condemning America or creating blockades and sanctions, despite America invading sovereign nations that are a part of the UN. Guantanamo is still open, reports continue to be leaked about the CIAs criminal international activities, not to mention the crimes against humanity and soldiers captured in war.

But seriously, all of this is besides the point. An American president that is more willing to speak with and discuss terms with a Russian president is a good thing. Communication is the first step towards a greater understanding.

Is Donald Trump a walking piece of shit in a 5000 dollar suit? Sure, but hey, here we have a guy who is politically irregular and unpredictable. He's bound to create upheaval and that's a good thing. Maybe America will burn down in the process but if something happens to the way America's crazy political machine works, how the politicians pander and the media works, then hopefully it will be worth it. Trump doesn't have any allegiances but to himself and that will either be a great strength or a disaster.

Watching from the sideline I think Trump has just a big a chance of being "Change you can believe in" as Obama was. And just like Obama, I think there's a big chance that all the crazy shit Trump will pull will never make it past voting in Congress or the Senate. In essence you will have a clown of a president and nothing will really change. People will continue to be outraged. Another election comes around and once again people will predict the end of the world if [Republican/Democrat] becomes the president.

You've got no fucking idea what you are talking about. Have you ever heard of the Supreme Court?

Trump is going to BREAK our system of government over that. Because the Republicans started it and you better be damned sure the Democrats will follow in kind.

Shut up, Apt.

And if Hillary had been elected, you'd had Republicans whining about "Hillary is going to BREAK our system of government", yadda, yadda. You are predicting the worst case scenario and acting like this is the end. Take a deep breath. Republicans are not monsters. Democrats are not monsters. Donald Trump is a monster though so maybe that will be the wild card.

I am still waiting for him to reveal on his inauguration that this was all a democratic trick and of course he's always voted democrat.

Khellendros, on 09 November 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

Apt, on 09 November 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

I think there's a big chance that all the crazy shit Trump will pull will never make it past voting in Congress or the Senate. In essence you will have a clown of a president and nothing will really change. People will continue to be outraged. Another election comes around and once again people will predict the end of the world if [Republican/Democrat] becomes the president.

Republicans, I believe, now have control of both Senate and House of Reps as well as the presidency. What will win out for the establishment Republicans? Their dislike of Trump, or their hatred of anything at all proposed by Democrats? I do wonder to what extent they will vote through policies for the simple reason that they will be something the Dems will be against.

One hopes that the elected officials are capable of acting rationally and creating constructive policies (I write trying not to laugh).

[Coltaine -]

HoosierDaddy, on 09 November 2016 - 09:46 AM, said:

Khellendros, on 09 November 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

Apt, on 09 November 2016 - 09:33 AM, said:

I think there's a big chance that all the crazy shit Trump will pull will never make it past voting in Congress or the Senate. In essence you will have a clown of a president and nothing will really change. People will continue to be outraged. Another election comes around and once again people will predict the end of the world if [Republican/Democrat] becomes the president.

Republicans, I believe, now have control of both Senate and House of Reps as well as the presidency. What will win out for the establishment Republicans? Their dislike of Trump, or their hatred of anything at all proposed by Democrats? I do wonder to what extent they will vote through policies for the simple reason that they will be something the Dems will be against.

Cloture rules are harder than that. It neds 60 senators to vote to close a cloture (filibuster). It's why the Senate is the Democrats stop-gap.

A spark of hope? They could read the MBotF. I guess it would take them maybe two weeks. Only 206 left.

[Mezla PigDog]

Traveller, on 09 November 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

I'm just sorry that half of the US will now be feeling how half of us felt back in the summer.

Yes this. I think the realisation that you share a country with so many people who vote and feel so differently from you feels like a huge betrayal.

I'm finding Western politics abhorrent at the moment. I keep having to reality check myself that at least I don't live in Aleppo or Mosul. I wonder what kind of world my kid will inherit but at least he's not drowning in the Mediterranean Sea. But then that kind of thinking makes it worse because the logical conclusion to that thought process is that the majority of voters in my country are happy to sit back and watch it all happen without helping. I feel like sensible people need to do something but there isn't a creditable movement to get behind. I want to go to Trafalgar Square and protest something but I don't know what.

I read an opinion piece somewhere that pointed out that if you are so out of touch with the general populace that you can't believe how a vote result can come to pass then maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are and you are part of the problem. He has a point but what to do about it?

[HoosierDaddy]

Mezla PigDog, on 09 November 2016 - 10:08 AM, said:

Traveller, on 09 November 2016 - 09:30 AM, said:

I'm just sorry that half of the US will now be feeling how half of us felt back in the summer.

Yes this. I think the realisation that you share a country with so many people who vote and feel so differently from you feels like a huge betrayal.

I'm finding Western politics abhorrent at the moment. I keep having to reality check myself that at least I don't live in Aleppo or Mosul. I wonder what kind of world my kid will inherit but at least he's not drowning in the Mediterranean Sea. But then that kind of thinking makes it worse because the logical conclusion to that thought process is that the majority of voters in my country are happy to sit back and watch it all happen without helping. I feel like sensible people need to do something but there isn't a creditable movement to get behind. I want to go to Trafalgar Square and protest something but I don't know what.

I read an opinion piece somewhere that pointed out that if you are so out of touch with the general populace that you can't believe how a vote result can come to pass then maybe you aren't as smart as you think you are and you are part of the problem. He has a point but what to do about it?

Being ahead of the curve in humanity. I think we read so much inhuman things it makes it easier to recognize the problems in our own world.

There will always be suffering. We do what we can to help and I don't think there's much more that we can do.

[Terez]

Morgoth, on 09 November 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

Yes, Hillary was unpopular, but I also suspect this was a reaction long time in the making.

Absolutely it was, and that's why the choice of Hillary at this particular time was the wrong one. And people in her campaign would say that 2008 was the year we should have elected her, that Obama could have come later—he's younger, after all—and maybe there's some truth to that. But insofar as it's true, it was already obvious when Hillary chose to run in the first place, and she absolutely cleared the field with her amazing résumé of amazingness. It's infuriating.

Morgoth, on 09 November 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

Stagnating wages, a shrinking middle class and ever growing inequality of opportunity lead to this I think. And as you say, Sanders might have been a better choice to tap into that same vein. He's certainly closer to the politics of my country, and we're a socialist paradise after all.

I say this a lot, but I was never fond of Bernie as a candidate either. He was a terrible candidate really. But so is Trump. Again, they were well-matched, and that's not to say that Bernie is in any way comparable to Trump as a human being. Bernie is one of the most honestly good-intentioned politicians we have, and I'm glad he's still in the senate and I'm really counting on him and Elizabeth Warren to hold the line over the next 4 years and build a movement.

Morgoth, on 09 November 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

At the same time, this election shows that people simply aren't very interested in the truth any more.

That has been obvious for a while. But it's worth noting that Trump did better among educated and high-income white voters than Romney. Does anyone really believe that's because they like Trump? Hillary hate doesn't just motivate the ignorant on the right. It motivates all of them, even those who should know better than to buy into every conspiracy theory about the Clintons they read. (Mind you, I'm tempted to believe a couple of them myself...but there are hundreds.) People argued that Obama-hate must surely be worse, but the popularity polling demonstrated fairly consistently that this wasn't true. Obama is likable; Hillary is not. That might be rooted in the prevalence of sexist thinking, but that doesn't make it any less of an electorally relevant truth. It was relevant in the primaries of 2008 and 2016 (where she was dangerously challenged by an incomprehensible self-proclaimed socialist), and it was relevant last night.

I realize that this is Monday-morning quarterbacking. Yeah, I said the same things months ago about her electability, but I also said other things that turned out to be misguided (mostly to do with Trump's chances at any given point to reach whatever his next goal happened to be). I'm rereading the primary season of this thread at the moment; I'll post some fun bits later.

Morgoth, on 09 November 2016 - 07:57 AM, said:

I worry for the US that sites like Breitbart have become a serious voice in your politics. That people can actually visit that place and say 'yes, this makes sense. I will listen to these people'.

This is one of the things I talked about back in primary season, when Trump voters started to turn against Fox because of Megyn Kelly. Part of me was happy that the Fox grip on the right was unraveling, but part of me was very concerned about how much bigger a role sites like Breitbart would play as that relationship to a traditional news organization collapsed. As terrible as Fox is, the internet rags are much worse.

.

This post has been edited by Terez: 09 November 2016 - 10:59 AM

[Tsundoku]

Terez, on 09 November 2016 - 10:57 AM, said:

This is one of the things I talked about back in primary season, when Trump voters started to turn against Fox because of Megyn Kelly. Part of me was happy that the Fox grip on the right was unraveling, but part of me was very concerned about how much bigger a role sites like Breitbart would play as that relationship to a traditional news organization collapsed. As terrible as Fox is, the internet rags are much worse.

So what next for the Right once they find Breitbart too liberal for their liking? Storm Front?

[Terez]

Stormfront is like the silver lining in this election. See Derek Black, a symbol of hope in the information war, such as it is.

[Tsundoku]

It turns out Trump predicted this, way back in 1998 in a People magazine article:

http://www.news.com....ddf940b19fcb2c1

(scroll about halfway down)

[Terez]

Fake.

[Gorefest]

Oh. Dear. God. They just interviewed a lady from some sort of 'women for Trump' movement and she literally said: "We will get our country back. It is based on Judeo-Christian ideals. We are now probably the only country where we can go to and say 'we are Americans'."

I mean.... no.... words fail me.

[Terez]

Some fun quotes from my thread reread. There's a multiquote limit, so I'll do these for now.

Terez, on 12 February 2016 - 05:14 PM, said:

As I said before, I think Bernie has a better chance of beating Trump than Hillary does because both Trump and Bernie are reflective of the overall desire for populist politics in this country. Bernie has a chance of recruiting Trump voters; we saw that in New Hampshire. Hillary has zero chance of taking would-be Trump voters. Nada. People like Trump because no one owns him; that's a good message against Hillary in a populist year; it's a terrible message against Bernie when he's worth about 300k and you're a billionaire. Yes, Trump has the power of xenophobia on his side; that counts with a lot of his voters, but not all of them.

Terez, on 18 February 2016 - 10:48 PM, said:

Here's an excellent article from Jacobin (socialist mag) on Bernie's electability (which, by the numbers, is far superior to Hillary's):

https://www.jacobinm...trump-election/

Terez, on 24 February 2016 - 03:35 AM, said:

Dumbledude, on 24 February 2016 - 03:16 AM, said:

Terez, on 24 February 2016 - 02:01 AM, said:

Dumbledude, on 24 February 2016 - 01:23 AM, said:

Couple of favorability comparison charts (spoilered due to size) from https://twitter.com/adrian_gray
Not necessarily predictive of anything, just interesting to see where Bernie, Hillary, and Donald fall relative to each other and to recent history.

Hillary is one of the weakest potential general election candidates we've seen in a while, perhaps even weaker than Trump, definitely weaker than Bernie by the numbers. The truly scary thing is that he'll be running to her left on several issues if she's the nominee. Corruption and campaign finance, trade, regime change, etc.

The DNC should have learned the lesson of the CA recall of Gray Davis: a somewhat liberal man who tried to play the middle and as a result made everybody mad (especially his deal w/ the Enron crowd, who you can sub w/ Godman Sachs) and ultimately gave us the Governator. I'm not saying Schwarzenegger was as bad as Trump, but Davis wasn't as bad as Clinton either.

The ultimate lesson is a seeming punchline of a candidate, with the right manipulations of outsider status, can and will snowplow their way to victory.

But Hillary is SO STRONG! I mean, look at her EXPERIENCE.

These people are frighteningly delusional. But in a way, it's kind of appropriate; both parties look poised to nominate someone who is not only disliked nationwide, but who is also broadly disliked within the party itself. It's really a toss-up as to which would win in the general. I tend to think it would be Trump because populist sentiment is so high right now, and because he's saying a lot of things that appeal to the middle, those left-of-Hillary positions I mentioned earlier. I wouldn't vote for him, but I imagine a lot of left-leaning independents would, especially the white ones.

Terez, on 24 February 2016 - 04:02 AM, said:

Dumbledude, on 24 February 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

What she needs is a serious defense against the Wall Street puppet attacks that are gonna come fast and hard.

This is definitely the crux of it. He's totally got her on this subject, and this is something that riles people up all across demographics. You're right that he's a fake populist, but Hillary's ability to defend here is very weak. I imagine she'll try to argue that he's an actual billionaire and guilty of trying to manipulate government with his money, but that argument only makes him the puppetmaster and her the puppet.

Dumbledude, on 24 February 2016 - 03:53 AM, said:

I also think (hope?) that in terms of optics Trump beating up on Clinton is gonna look worse in the general than it did with the GOP crowds. Like him telling her to "shut up" at a debate or something like that.

The GOP crowds will love it, and so will many people in the middle (especially white men) who can't stand Hillary. Trump uses social media responses to fine-tune his tactics and methods. He knows what people like and don't like, and he's shown himself willing to make course corrections along the way. I'm sure he'll do the same in the general. He's a lot better at this than he's given credit for.

Terez, on 24 February 2016 - 04:53 AM, said:

Dumbledude, on 24 February 2016 - 04:13 AM, said:

Terez you are speaking a nightmare. I am not psychologically or emotionally prepared to withstand any of this.

It gets worse. As tightly as he's got her on Wall St., he's got her even better on foreign policy. He doesn't have to get into Benghazi to attack her on Libya. He can successfully attack nearly every foreign policy decision she's ever made, and the best she's got on him is that he apparently spoke in favor of the war in Iraq in 2002 and 2003, despite what he's been saying. Again, it's not a very good defense.

He's got her on trade because she lobbied hard for NAFTA and various other trade deals (see recent email dumps); no one believes she'll actually reject or fight against the TPP. He can pin the entire collapse of our manufacturing sector on her with a bit of rhetorical panache.

He'll also be sure to hit hard on her in ways that Bernie isn't willing to do, when it comes to her arms deals with Saudi Arabia and other foreign interests who have donated to the Clinton Foundation. Anyone who thinks Bernie is running a negative campaign against Hillary, forging her in the fires of the primary, is incredibly delusional. The Democratic party would be unforgiving if Bernie actually attacked her where she's weakest. But Trump won't hesitate, and he has plenty to work with that has nothing to do with rightwing conspiracies.

[Tsundoku]

Terez, on 09 November 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

Fake.

Huh, there you go. Maybe someone should tell the retweeters.

[Slow Ben]

Well..........shit.

[Cause]

Captain Needa, on 09 November 2016 - 12:43 PM, said:

Terez, on 09 November 2016 - 12:27 PM, said:

Fake.

Huh, there you go. Maybe someone should tell the retweeters.

It amazes me how many people wont take 30 seconds to fact check these things. I once had an argument with someone where I literally just posted 10 links to snopes.com in regards to all the horrrible things hillary apparently did.

[QuickTidal]

Not that I care much for Michael Moore, being so full of himself...but he was scarily accurate on predicting a Trump win AND why.

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

This seems like what happened for the most part, isn't it?

[amphibian]

My father predicted back in January that Trump would win. Last night, he said he hated to be correct and that it was an embarrassment for politicians and media alike that this happened. Both groups need to change majorly in terms of how they address people and the one fucking guy who figured it out in today's world is now president.

[Mentalist]

Apt, on 09 November 2016 - 07:40 AM, said:

So, I've been staying out of this thread for months because US policts doesn't really interest me that much, but... Is the above hyperbole the common opinion of the Malazan Empire?

You seriously think the economy is going to tank? That abortions are going to be abolished? That the justice system is going to be dismantled, etc? You're all acting like the sky is falling.

Don't you see any similarities between your predictions of the election (Trump has no chance) and your predictions of what's going to happen in the next 4 years? (The world is ending)

Trump is a business man. He's going to run the White House like the Chairman of the Board. He'll have head hunters that will select the best people (He has The Best People), who are most likely to create political profit and who will make him look good. IE competent people who will make sure the country doesn't hit an iceberg.

Personally I think it's fascinating that Trump is almost certainly your next president. Maybe he's going to fail but at least you're going to try something different for 4 years.

1) A businessman is a terrible choice to run a country. country. A country/government is not a "business". Different priorities, diff demands.

Ukraine elected a billionaire (4th richest man) to be Pres. Within a year he was the richest. Do not recommend.

2) The real reason I'm very concern with this is to do with what Nevyn said- he won with this campaign. You realize that every white supremacist, sexist, and everyyone who is "sick of being PC" and defines himself as "adhering to traditional values" everywhere (but especially in Europe) is now going to feel "vindicated?". If Americans feel it's okay okay to have an openly racist "****y-grabber" as the most powerful man in the world, then it must be okay, everywhere, right?

All those far-right "nutjobs" will now think "it's okay to say what everyone's thinking! It's more than okay- it gets you elec without the hassle of actual politics!" just start saying "what we're all thinking"!

I repeat myself: Brexit, Trump- it's part of a trend. Trump's victory as a populist "outsider" riding the worst of racist, chauvinist rhetoric, is going to promote the trend. HRC's victory, while not amounting to much would've probably restored the status quo, leaving the constructive segment with an opportunity to gain some momentum for an overhaul rather th destruction destruction of the system.

3) if we're gonna talk geopolitics, then yes, absolutely, the swing to the far-right/conservative/"traditionalist" values in the West is to Russia's advantage- b/c they've been effectively developing neo-imperialist rhetoric based on "preserving tradition" against "the decadent West". And no, "talking" (read: "dividing spheres of influence a la Great Powers") is not a step forward. I'm obviously biased (I got 2nd and 3rd cousins in Donbass right now), but "talking" to VVH is as much a step forward as Munich '38 was a "step towards peace for our generation".
(this is without me speculating just how tight Trump's business is with Russian investors. Though given Germany's Schroeder is a major Gazprom stakeholder, that won't surprise me)

[Terez]

More prognosticating from back then:

Terez, on 03 March 2016 - 06:13 AM, said:

What's really scary is that if Trump does get the nomination, he might win, because we chose this year to crown one of the most unpopular Democratic leaders of the modern era, someone who is uniquely positioned to cede poorly educated anti-corruption progressives—these mystifying Trump-Bernie swing voters—and also uniquely positioned to attract, in return, a smaller group of conservative elite who recognize that her positions on war and finance are in line with their own. DNC leadership and Party groupthink shut out the possibility of all other viable candidates except Bernie, who has never responded very much to that kind of pressure (hence his willingness to discuss primarying Obama in 2012). And he's a self-proclaimed socialist, eccentric, lacking any particular charisma or eloquence or expertise, running on the fumes of his decades-strong stalwart dedication to the issues that progressives actually care about.

[...]

The more I think about it, the more I'm uncertain that we're not actually looking at another polar reversal. I think back in September, I underestimated how attractive Trump could be to those poorly educated white progressives. I think the Hillary people are still underestimating this. There has not been much polling, but this poll suggests a lot of crossover, with a smaller number of conservatives going to Hillary than liberals going to Trump. The phenomenon of the Bernie-Trump swingers was widely reported beginning in Iowa and New Hampshire. Journalists were very confused about this. I mentioned this earlier in the thread, somewhere between September and here. That's white economic populism, completely divorced from racial identity politics, such that it feels comfortable either with Bernie, who actively courts minority voters and obviously cares about their issues, despite his bad returns with black voters, or Trump, who is basically the candidate of the KKK. And then there's this truly frightening piece on young progressives, who are not nearly as socially liberal and tolerant as we think they are.

And back to the present...

QuickTidal, on 09 November 2016 - 02:53 PM, said:

Not that I care much for Michael Moore, being so full of himself...but he was scarily accurate on predicting a Trump win AND why.

http://michaelmoore.com/trumpwillwin/

This seems like what happened for the most part, isn't it?

Yep. It was predictable, but with all my prognostication on Hillary's relative chances in the general, I still thought she would pull it out. But, being apathetic since it became clear Bernie would lose, I've only been paying attention to the professional prognosticators like 538. And, though they gave Trump better chances than any of the other stats-analysis shops, they still gave Hillary a 60-70% chance of winning in the days running up to the election. (They got bashed for that by other outlets, some of which had Trump's chances as low as 1%.)