Donald Trump Presidency-Day One

The bleak news is that it appears Breitbart is being presented as a legitimate 'news' website, when it is propaganda that regularly takes news items whose facts can be verified, and turns them inside out with the 'post-truth' tactic that makes everything an opinion -other than their own argument. In the summer of 2015 for example, Breitbart produced more than one article on the shocking photo of three-year old Aylan Kurdi lying dead on a Turkish beach and used it to point out how 'odd' it was that this one photo had changed the debate on Syrian refugees -the answer being that it was staged, that the 'facts' about Aylan Kurdi and his father were the opposite of what the 'liberal' media had said and it was Breitbart that alone had the truth to hand. Just last week President Asad said the footage of the small boy rescued from a building bombed to rubble, placed in the back of an ambulance with blood on his head and bewildered look on his face was anti-Syrian propaganda staged for the media.

Another example is the extent to which Pamela Geller (who has been denied entry into the UK for her extreme views) has exploited an incident in Twin Falls, Idaho earlier this year in which she claims Muslim immigrants raped a five year old at knifepoint, even though the truth is there was no knife and there was no rape. No matter, Muslim immigrants are only in the USA to rape and murder, and that is the only 'truth' Ms Geller wants her fellow Americans to know.

But that is not all. The Trump campaign has capitalised on the disaffection with both Democrats and Republicans and hacked away at both the liberalism and conservatism it sees in those decrepit parties. In its place there is a radical, or pseudo-radical 'populism' which is really just White Supremacist garbage dressed up as the 'righteous' anger of 'Americans' disillusioned with globalization -the buzz word for job stealing foreigners. It doesn't just mean ridiculing Conservatives like John McCain and Jeb Bush, but identifying them by their religion, as happened to the distinguished conservative Bill Kristol (see below).
Ben Shapiro in the Daily Wire, who used to work at Breitbart has turned on Bannon in this piece here-
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8441/i...n-ben-shapiro#

A few news outlets saying Giuliani about to be appointed to Hillary's old job...Secretary of State. I would have guessed he'd prefer Justice Dept given his background as prosecutor. But the chance to run foreign policy has to be irresistible

Or it could be John Bolton as Secretary of State -he has a long-established contempt for Iran- while Giuliani heads Homeland Security?

In the meantime I understand Trump will not put his businesses or shareholdings into a Blind Trust and his family will run the Trump empire. Will this lead to a new definition of mergers & acquisitions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

A few news outlets saying Giuliani about to be appointed to Hillary's old job...Secretary of State. I would have guessed he'd prefer Justice Dept given his background as prosecutor. But the chance to run foreign policy has to be irresistible

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Or it could be John Bolton as Secretary of State -he has a long-established contempt for Iran- while Giuliani heads Homeland Security?

In the meantime I understand Trump will not put his businesses or shareholdings into a Blind Trust and his family will run the Trump empire. Will this lead to a new definition of mergers & acquisitions?

---

Supposedly if Trump apppoints Bolton, he will use up any political capital he has when it comes to his appointments. But there has to be somebody else for better for Secretary of State than Rudy Giuliani. It seems to me he would be in way over his head if he took that job.

So there lies the question for any Republicans who maybe don't like Trump and think he was the wrong person for the job. If offered a position in his administration, do they do what's best for the country and say yes. Or do they stick to their convictions and just wait his presidency out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

So there lies the question for any Republicans who maybe don't like Trump and think he was the wrong person for the job. If offered a position in his administration, do they do what's best for the country and say yes. Or do they stick to their convictions and just wait his presidency out.

---

If the meetings with 'Lyin' Ted Cruz' and Mitt Romney are anything to go by it appears some people are desperate to be part of the game and have no shame when it comes to justifying their actions, though I suppose 'what's best for the country' produces a group of people who maybe think they can manipulate Donald or want to 'keep him on the right path'? Or he could like Theresa May be giving high profile jobs to people who disagree with each other to strengthen his position while weakening theirs.

What I don't understand is the relationship between Trump's business and his family and his responsibilities as President. I don't understand the mechanisms which would require Trump to put all or any of his businesses into a 'Blind Trust' -are they legal requirements or conventions? Also, the presence of his children in the transition team and at meetings with domestic and foreign leaders further blurs the distinction between Donald Trump the President, Donald Trump the businessman and Donald Trump the father with regard to decision-making, security clearances and so forth. The only parallel I can think of is JFK choosing his brother Robert as Attorney General in 1961. I am assuming this will be clearer by January.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

If the meetings with 'Lyin' Ted Cruz' and Mitt Romney are anything to go by it appears some people are desperate to be part of the game and have no shame when it comes to justifying their actions, though I suppose 'what's best for the country' produces a group of people who maybe think they can manipulate Donald or want to 'keep him on the right path'? .

---

I think this is the right question. If right wing moderates are unwilling to be a part of Trump's administration because they're ashamed of the association, that's a bad kind of self-selection. I hope that some moderating forces step up and are willing to influence him.

There are unfortunately early indications that nobody controls Donald but Donald...how else could one explain the tweets he's put up since winning the election. Very scary that people are either afraid to give him advice, don't know what advice to give him, or he cannot be influenced by sane people. There's no way a president elect should be admonishing comedians for satire, or directing vitriol at independent journalists and actors in plays. It's not that these are strictly prohibited acts, but they move in the wrong direction regarding expressive freedom given the power of his office.

I wish someone would take away his twitter account. It's as if it's his crack and he just can't stop. It needs to sink in that being a President means you're a diplomat 24/7...your public statements usually have to be carefully thought out/chosen - your words have meaning that can't always be stepped back.

Mike Pence, on the other hand, said all the right things when asked about his 'Hamilton' experience :
http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/mike-pe...-despite-boos/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...antasy+Huddle)

He even raved about the play, urging everyone to see it and calling it "incredible".

Still need to wait and see what Trump does in January, but for the love of....Stop fucking going on Twitter and get a thicker skin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Mike Pence, on the other hand, said all the right things when asked about his 'Hamilton' experience :
http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/mike-pe...-despite-boos/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...antasy+Huddle)

He even raved about the play, urging everyone to see it and calling it "incredible".

---

I agree with everything you say here. Tons to be said about subject. I personally would not boo Pence if I were at play and I could not have less respect for his politics. That said, there is a way for a democratically elected leader to act in the face of hostility...with dignity and restraint which Pence did.

The statement made to him may have taken him off guard and singled him out, but it was a measured statement. Politically embarrassing that someone feels the need to say it, but not an attack or an attempt to ridicule him.

In fact, if it were met with reassurances by Trump, Trump probably would have won political points, which I suppose he doesn't need since he already won the election. But if he wants to heal the divide, he would respond like an adult to criticism....it would not win everybody over, but it would provide some measure of comfort to the public. The reason pieces of shit feel empowered by Trump is in large part bc he responds to criticism like someone with a major personality disorder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

I wish someone would take away his twitter account. It's as if it's his crack and he just can't stop. It needs to sink in that being a President means you're a diplomat 24/7...your public statements usually have to be carefully thought out/chosen - your words have meaning that can't always be stepped back.

Mike Pence, on the other hand, said all the right things when asked about his 'Hamilton' experience :
http://nypost.com/2016/11/20/mike-pe...-despite-boos/
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...antasy+Huddle)

He even raved about the play, urging everyone to see it and calling it "incredible".

Still need to wait and see what Trump does in January, but for the love of....Stop fucking going on Twitter and get a thicker skin.

---

He has to realize that he is following in the footsteps of the two of the most polarizing Presidents in the history of our country. From what I can recall, neither Bush or Obama reacted negatively to the ton of crap that was said about them.

I'm not sure it's fair to say the presidents were polarizing. Bush ran as a "uniter not a divider" indicating the populace was already divided.

After 9/11 Bush stood behind Muslim Americans. The whole world was behind us at that point. Then Bush blew it by invading Afghanistan and Iraq. We were divided again, not for the first time.

Nor was Obama polarizing -he has the least polarizing personality I can imagine - it was his race that was polarizing.

I believe the current division in America began when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House and shut down government for the first time. It was also the time when new technologies brought about a revolution in media that is still ongoing. Cable gave us 24 hour news stations devoted to their own particular slants and the Internet was just coming into its own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Nor was Obama polarizing -he has the least polarizing personality I can imagine - it was his race that was polarizing.

---

The divide between how he was described and how he is is so stark. These are subjective impressions, but Obama is patient, thoughtful, eloquent, direct, thick-skinned. Trump is impatient, impulsive, thin-skinned, inarticulate, and dishonest. We really have been so polarized that these sorts of fact-supported opinions can't be generally agreed upon. Imagine trying to tell a Stalin partisan that Stalin was paranoid and cruel. They'd say that's just your opinion because you don't like him.

He got the Trump University lawsuit out of the way; it's not a bad idea to get it figured out ahead of time but he clearly defrauded the students of Trump University whether he admits guilt or not.

As Stavros said, I'm not sure what he has to do with his assets...he's not going to set up a blind trust. Some have recommended that since he already knows what he owns and the assets are not liquid, a blind trust would not be sufficient to avoid conflicts. He would have to liquidate his assets and then put them in a blind trust so that he doesn't know what he owns. I remembered reading that the conflict of interest rules don't apply to the President....but I don't know whether the source was reliable.

Edit: this is where I read it. He is not legally required to avoid conflicts, but something called the emoluments clause does apply. He has to avoid accepting anything construed as a gift from a foreign government.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...pt-conflict-i/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I'm not sure it's fair to say the presidents were polarizing. Bush ran as a "uniter not a divider" indicating the populace was already divided.

After 9/11 Bush stood behind Muslim Americans. The whole world was behind us at that point. Then Bush blew it by invading Afghanistan and Iraq. We were divided again, not for the first time.

Nor was Obama polarizing -he has the least polarizing personality I can imagine - it was his race that was polarizing.

I believe the current division in America began when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House and shut down government for the first time. It was also the time when new technologies brought about a revolution in media that is still ongoing. Cable gave us 24 hour news stations devoted to their own particular slants and the Internet was just coming into its own.

---

Maybe polarizing was the wrong word. But from people insulting Bush about his intelligence and saying that 9-11 was an inside job. To people saying that Obama wasn't born in this country and of course the subtle/not so subtle racist comments, both of them didn't react to every negative thing that was said about them. Trump needs to learn that a ton of heat comes with job that he has just been elected to. Some of it will be warranted and some of it won't. He needs to grow a thicker skin.

While that war has gone on 15 more years than it should have, I still believe that invading Afghanistan was the right response to the 9-11 attacks. But you're right about how much good will Bush wasted with the invasion of Iraq.

Basically we agree; this is just a quibble about our reaction to Afghanistan. It's not clear ( as far as I know) that Al Qaeda was state sponsored. It's true that the government was essentially Taliban, and both Al Qaeda are Sunni, but the connection may end there. Yet we opted for regime change in Afghanistan and we opted to implement it militarily.

The people of Afghanistan are incredibly poor. We might have tried to change hearts and minds by offering to provide aid, build schools and hospitals. We could have remove Al Qaeda more surgically. Of coarse the objection to this might be that we have no business building schools in Afghanistan in an attempt to moderate their politics and religion. But if that's a valid objection, then neither do we have any business forcing a regime change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Basically we agree; this is just a quibble about our reaction to Afghanistan. It's not clear ( as far as I know) that Al Qaeda was state sponsored. It's true that the government was essentially Taliban, and both Al Qaeda are Sunni, but the connection may end there. Yet we opted for regime change in Afghanistan and we opted to implement it militarily.

The people of Afghanistan are incredibly poor. We might have tried to change hearts and minds by offering to provide aid, build schools and hospitals. We could have remove Al Qaeda more surgically. Of coarse the objection to this might be that we have no business building schools in Afghanistan in an attempt to moderate their politics and religion. But if that's a valid objection, then neither do we have any business forcing a regime change.

---

The problem lies in defining 'state sponsored'.
It is well known that both the USA and Saudi Arabia provided the finances and in the case of the USA some of the military hardware (Stinger missiles) that was used by the Mujahideen to fight the USSR in Afghanistan, but direct US involvement was minimal and most of the oganization was left to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency [ISI] and their primary aim was to buttress the domestic Islamist politics in Pakistan imposed by General Zia ul-Haq following the execution of President Bhutto in 1979, through its support for Islamic forces in Afghanistan, just as they nurtured the student movement in the refugee camps in the 1980s which morphed into the Taliban. For most of the 1980s the Arab fighters were considered useless by the Afghans, but after the Soviet withdrawal Osma bin Laden removed from the Sudan and with a few thousand fighters in the 1990s proved to be useful to the Taliban in fighting warlords around Kandahar. The money came from bin Laden's own resources and whatever he could raise from Saudi Arabia and the Gulf and while this must have come from wealthy individuals linked to the royal families, it is not possible to describe it unequivocally as 'state sponsored'. More like the states concerned -the USA, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Iran supported various groups in Afghanistan for their own interest, which (as we observe in Syria), is one reason why the war lasted so long and national unity proved, then as now, so hard to cement. There is an extensive, if relatively short history here-
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/p...or-the-taliban

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I believe the current division in America began when Newt Gingrich became Speaker of the House and shut down government for the first time. It was also the time when new technologies brought about a revolution in media that is still ongoing. Cable gave us 24 hour news stations devoted to their own particular slants and the Internet was just coming into its own.

---

If I disagree with this, it is only because I see the 1960s as a pivotal decade following the Roosevelt era, possibly more influential than the Reagan era which dismantled the New Deal economy that had held since 1933. The reason is thus not so much economic in origin as social and political and can be seen in the data the Pew Research Center has published on the transition away from a bi-partisan Congress to an increasingly polarised one, and that it began in the 1970s. Here is a key illustration of what happened -

Since the 1970s, the congressional parties have sorted themselves both ideologically and geographically. The combined House delegation of the six New England states, for instance, went from 15 Democrats and 10 Republicans in 1973-74 to 20 Democrats and two Republicans in 2011-12. In the South the combined House delegation essentially switched positions: from 91 Democrats and 42 Republicans in 1973-74 to 107 Republicans and 47 Democrats in 2011-12.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...se-ever-since/

-I think we know that the impact of Civil Rights legislation hammered the 'Dixiecrats' in the South, just as the arch-Conservative Moral Majority and other evangelical Christian groups used the South as a base from which to mount their attacks on the 'identity politics' which then and now they believed is 'destroying' America. But what also happened, according to the late Richard Rorty is that the Democrats became the party of 'identity politics' to the extent that they abandoned a coherent economic programme that would maintain a degree of attention to poverty, income inequality and the fair re-distribution of wealth-

The alliance between the unions and intellectuals, so vital to passing legislation in the Progressive Era, broke down. In universities, cultural and identity politics replaced the politics of change and economic justice. By 1997, when Mr. Rorty gave three lectures that make up the spine of “Achieving Our Country,” few of his academic colleagues, he insisted, were talking about reducing poverty at all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/bo...ming.html?_r=0

I think Rorty underestimates the problem that the Democrats had after the ascendancy of Ronald Reagan -their inability to win the White House -they only won it once between 1964 and 1992. It was this hunger for the Presidency that forced the Democrats to move to the centre ground defined by Reagan and throw in their lot with globalization without seeking to manage its worst excesses, symbolized by the 'regulation lite' of the banking and financial system although the repeal of Glass-Steagall originated in Congress and Clinton would not have vetoed it. Thus the Gingrich 'Contract with America' is an attempt to distance the Republican Party from an economic agenda it would have supported in previous years, but was an extension or affirmation of the breakdown of a bi-partisan Congress but also illuminated the divisions within the Party which Trump has been able to exploit, and just as the Republicans are hungry for power, they will grab whatever morsels Trump throws at them.

But, fundamentally the 1960s remains the dividing line for me, and what is most striking is not just the extension of constitutional rights to all Americans, but the outstanding fact that the one 'group' who emerged from the 1960s in a far better position than before was women, and one can hardly describe American women as a minority. Yet the vitriolic abuse of Hillary Clinton makes me wonder if the deepest -or least recognised- cleavage in the USA is not regional, not 'racial' or even economic but gender based. And here the irony is that the Trump many believe regards most women as furniture will become President while the woman who not only won two million more votes than he did, scored the second highest vote in US election history. That doesn't remove the Democrats credibility problem, but it does offer an intriguing recipe for change and success, if it chooses to embrace change -and develop a coherent economic strategy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladin

muslims / islamists have the deplorable distinction of treating the LBGT community WORSE that any other identifiable group!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budweiser

That is true, all Muslims want to throw all LBGT people off of the top of a tall building and then throw stones at them until they're dead.

:(

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

I really can't tell if you're joking or not. You know that's not only false but idiotic, right?

---

Ummm haven't you heard of a little thing called The ISIS? How about The Pulse? Hello!

ISIS is just the Muslim version of the American klan/nazis who are currently crawling out of the woodwork like so many maggots.

Actually, ISIS is one step closer than the klan/nazis to being civilized, for the simple fact that they're not racist.

After Trump walks into the Oval Office on Day 1, he will issue an executive order banning the abortion drug RU-486.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-da...-and-pizzagate

I thought this was a good article about pizzagate...the conspiracy theory spread by right wing nutjobs that the President elect panders to. It was promoted by the National Security Adviser's son (Flynn himself had promoted similar conspiracy theories) who was part of the transition team but has since been fired. Terrifying. Also terrifying that it's already considered old news in our news cycle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-da...-and-pizzagate

I thought this was a good article about pizzagate...the conspiracy theory spread by right wing nutjobs that the President elect panders to. It was promoted by the National Security Adviser's son (Flynn himself had promoted similar conspiracy theories) who was part of the transition team but has since been fired. Terrifying. Also terrifying that it's already considered old news in our news cycle.

---

He may have been fired but he still has a transition team email address and has not backed down on the conspiracy, tweeting-
"Until #Pizzagate proven to be false, it'll remain a story. The left seems to forget #PodestaEmails and the many 'coincidences' tied to it," the younger Flynn tweeted.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7458836.html

I'm morbidly curious to see how bad this gets. Our ability to predict the future is not good as we found out in the election. It really brings home a point I've been pedantically making for years (others have probably done it eloquently)...that those on the left who claim there is no difference between the parties simply because their preferred policy choices are not represented are shameful ignoramuses. Or they don't give a shit about the stuff they claim to give a shit about.

How do I make this point simply. The new head of the EPA is someone who believes climate change is a hoax. Our head of the Department of Labour is someone who is a critic of minimum wage increases. The AFL says he's a man who has spent his entire career fighting against the interests of working people...he will be charged with administering the fair labor standards act, which enforces minimum wage and overtime violations. Oh joy. Our national security adviser is an open bigot against Muslims and a conspiracy quack. Our President elect himself has spent his time since being elected abusing the head of a labor union on twitter, who is now receiving death threats, and lashing out at media stations and comedy shows. He is considering as secretary of state Dana Rohrabacher, a shill for Putin who today told a Moldovan-American woman on television that she had no right to criticize Putin for human rights violations because her background disqualifies her as biased. Where have we heard that argument before?

Please tell me now bleeding heart lefties who couldn't tell the difference between Trump and Hillary how much you care for the environment, how much you care about working people and the rights of minorities. Tell it to the person making 7.25 an hour. Say it at the local mosque! No but seriously. Any hardcore lefties want to weigh in on why Hillary would have been just as bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I'm morbidly curious to see how bad this gets. Our ability to predict the future is not good as we found out in the election. It really brings home a point I've been pedantically making for years (others have probably done it eloquently)...that those on the left who claim there is no difference between the parties simply because their preferred policy choices are not represented are shameful ignoramuses. Or they don't give a shit about the stuff they claim to give a shit about.

How do I make this point simply. The new head of the EPA is someone who believes climate change is a hoax. Our head of the Department of Labour is someone who is a critic of minimum wage increases. The AFL says he's a man who has spent his entire career fighting against the interests of working people...he will be charged with administering the fair labor standards act, which enforces minimum wage and overtime violations. Oh joy. Our national security adviser is an open bigot against Muslims and a conspiracy quack. Our President elect himself has spent his time since being elected abusing the head of a labor union on twitter, who is now receiving death threats, and lashing out at media stations and comedy shows. He is considering as secretary of state Dana Rohrabacher, a shill for Putin who today told a Moldovan-American woman on television that she had no right to criticize Putin for human rights violations because her background disqualifies her as biased. Where have we heard that argument before?

Please tell me now bleeding heart lefties who couldn't tell the difference between Trump and Hillary how much you care for the environment, how much you care about working people and the rights of minorities. Tell it to the person making 7.25 an hour. Say it at the local mosque! No but seriously. Any hardcore lefties want to weigh in on why Hillary would have been just as bad.

---

Exhibit A: Colin Kaepernick.

Supposedly he couldn't be bother to vote because neither party was specifically addressing the concerns of the community. To that I have to say to Kaepernick and other black people who were supposedly still pissed off about the Crime Bill that Bill Clinton passed in the 1990s', its not just about black and brown people. There were other issues at stake. Until the liberals on both coasts and in D.C. realize that, they will continue to be party that wanders aimlessly in the woods. Asking themselves, "what went wrong"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Please tell me now bleeding heart lefties who couldn't tell the difference between Trump and Hillary how much you care for the environment, how much you care about working people and the rights of minorities. Tell it to the person making 7.25 an hour. Say it at the local mosque! No but seriously. Any hardcore lefties want to weigh in on why Hillary would have been just as bad.

---

Look again at the campaign and you will find that the two candidates who most publicly railed against globalization and its trade deals were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The two candidates who most publicly attacked Wall St, the 'Bankers' and the unelected lobbyists were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The two candidates who sought to represent the forgotten workers of America struggling on low pay in depressed areas of the country were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. So the idea that there was some polarised view of 'left and right' no longer holds on a wide range of issues and is one reason why Trump in the USA and the 'Brexit' camp in the UK along with anti-immigrants Wilders in the Netherlands and Le Pen in France are being re-branded as 'Populists'.

And yet, while Hillary Clinton was seen as old-style system politics, she whipped Trump in the popular vote which wasn't even close if you compare GW Bush and Albert Gore. Just as the Leave campaign failed to win the EU Referendum in the UK by a margin of even 5% and last night UKIP failed, yet again, to get a candidate elected to the House of Commons in a bye-election in an area of the UK supposedly packed with Leave supporters you find that this 'protest politics' is winning elections and votes, but only just. Old system politics continues to offer something to a lot of people.

I think in the UK that voters have become disenchanted with elected politicians over the last ten years due to the lies that were told about Iraq followed by the actuality of regime change there, and then the scandal over MP's expenses which was even more damaging to the reputation of politicians. The fact that many of these politicians are the same people held responsible for ten years of low everything -low interest rates, low pay, low expectations- hurts them, but does not necessarily allow a 'fresh' opposition to offer substantially real alternatives because as we have discussed before, capitalism is not producing the solutions in terms of new jobs with good wages in high volume creating economic growth.
All we are left with, in a manner of speaking, are frauds and fascists who have stolen ideas and policies from left, right and centre, marketing it with an aggressive posture while being unable to prove they can do anything different, other than deepen already existing divisions in society.
I fear we are moving into a decade of indecision and disappointment, and that this will test the resilience of democracy if people feel it is no longer working to their advantage even if there is no superior alternative, unless that is deemed to be the kind of dictatorship that offers the illusion of leadership and decisive action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Look again at the campaign and you will find that the two candidates who most publicly railed against globalization and its trade deals were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The two candidates who most publicly attacked Wall St, the 'Bankers' and the unelected lobbyists were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. The two candidates who sought to represent the forgotten workers of America struggling on low pay in depressed areas of the country were Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. So the idea that there was some polarised view of 'left and right' no longer holds on a wide range of issues and is one reason why Trump in the USA and the 'Brexit' camp in the UK along with anti-immigrants Wilders in the Netherlands and Le Pen in France are being re-branded as 'Populists'.

And yet, while Hillary Clinton was seen as old-style system politics, she whipped Trump in the popular vote which wasn't even close if you compare GW Bush and Albert Gore. Just as the Leave campaign failed to win the EU Referendum in the UK by a margin of even 5% and last night UKIP failed, yet again, to get a candidate elected to the House of Commons in a bye-election in an area of the UK supposedly packed with Leave supporters you find that this 'protest politics' is winning elections and votes, but only just. Old system politics continues to offer something to a lot of people.

I think in the UK that voters have become disenchanted with elected politicians over the last ten years due to the lies that were told about Iraq followed by the actuality of regime change there, and then the scandal over MP's expenses which was even more damaging to the reputation of politicians. The fact that many of these politicians are the same people held responsible for ten years of low everything -low interest rates, low pay, low expectations- hurts them, but does not necessarily allow a 'fresh' opposition to offer substantially real alternatives because as we have discussed before, capitalism is not producing the solutions in terms of new jobs with good wages in high volume creating economic growth.
All we are left with, in a manner of speaking, are frauds and fascists who have stolen ideas and policies from left, right and centre, marketing it with an aggressive posture while being unable to prove they can do anything different, other than deepen already existing divisions in society.
I fear we are moving into a decade of indecision and disappointment, and that this will test the resilience of democracy if people feel it is no longer working to their advantage even if there is no superior alternative, unless that is deemed to be the kind of dictatorship that offers the illusion of leadership and decisive action.

---

During the post election forum that involved the campaign team of both candidates, the one thing that all involved could agree on was the impact that Bernie Sanders had. While I don't agree with a lot of Bernie Sanders has to say, I'm starting to wonder if things would have turned out different if he was the Democratic nominee and not Hillary. Or at the very least there wasn't the appearance of the DNC going out of its way to hand Hillary the nomination.

Another thing that came out of that forum was that its going to be a longtime before the Clinton campaign is going to get over losing this election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

All we are left with, in a manner of speaking, are frauds and fascists who have stolen ideas and policies from left, right and centre, marketing it with an aggressive posture while being unable to prove they can do anything different, other than deepen already existing divisions in society.
I fear we are moving into a decade of indecision and disappointment, and that this will test the resilience of democracy if people feel it is no longer working to their advantage even if there is no superior alternative, unless that is deemed to be the kind of dictatorship that offers the illusion of leadership and decisive action.

---

Actually, we've already had a decade of indecision and disappointment, which is what created the perfect conditions for aggressively self-confident hucksters like Trump. On the positive side, there may be a natural corrective as the populists are unlikely to be able satisfy the expectations they have created. However, we should not underestimate the ability of Trump and the like to create distractions and manipulate things to their advantage, particularly if the other side fails to settle on a coherent alternative.

I think people tend to underestimate the extent to which democracy and the rule of law are vulnerable. Ultimately, these don't depend on pieces of paper but on the willingness of most people in the system to abide by and support the rules (both letter and spirit). When one party controls all of the arms of government it depends on a critical mass within that party being prepared to stand up for these principles. Nixon was forced to resign in the 70s because key members of his own party refused to support him. It's hard to be optimistic that that would happen today.

There may not be a day one of this presidency if Russia's 'interference' in the elections compromises the results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

There may not be a day one of this presidency if Russia's 'interference' in the elections compromises the results.

---

Never going to happen. I don't put anything past the Russians. But interfering in an United States presidential election is dangerous territory, even for them to enter into. Also, the last thing President Obama wants to do is make it look like anything is going to impede the peaceful transition of power. So even if this study into election hacking does reveal anything, I don't expect much to come of it.

I agree with blackchubby. No one will be able to pin the hacking directly on Putin so a vague tie-in with Russia will amount to nothing. Now the networks are confirming that the new Secretary of State will be Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson. Tillerson and Putin are pals from the early 90's when the young oil exec was negotiating drilling deals after the Soviet breakup.
Trump is clearly paving the path for a new Russian-American alliance and McCain and his lot in congress look tired and old trying to block it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Actually, we've already had a decade of indecision and disappointment, which is what created the perfect conditions for aggressively self-confident hucksters like Trump. On the positive side, there may be a natural corrective as the populists are unlikely to be able satisfy the expectations they have created. However, we should not underestimate the ability of Trump and the like to create distractions and manipulate things to their advantage, particularly if the other side fails to settle on a coherent alternative.

I think people tend to underestimate the extent to which democracy and the rule of law are vulnerable. Ultimately, these don't depend on pieces of paper but on the willingness of most people in the system to abide by and support the rules (both letter and spirit). When one party controls all of the arms of government it depends on a critical mass within that party being prepared to stand up for these principles. Nixon was forced to resign in the 70s because key members of his own party refused to support him. It's hard to be optimistic that that would happen today.

---

I agree with your points, with Trump's dismissal of the CIA report into Russian cybercrime being one example of the dangers of a new man refusing to accept as true what he doesn't like.
My guess is that Trump did not expect to win the election and realised, particularly after meeting Obama in the White House, that he doesn't have the competence to do it. That is why he turned to the experienced people he said during the campaign were responsible for a 'broken America' while for their part, those who have agreed to sit at the high table have done so because they think they will never have a better chance than now to shape American policy to their interests, the assumption being that Trump will be more concerned with his image and making speeches than the detail of policy. How this pans out is another guess, as like Brexit it is still too early to tell how these people will get along with each other, and if the Administration is divided or united.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by flabbybody

I agree with blackchubby. No one will be able to pin the hacking directly on Putin so a vague tie-in with Russia will amount to nothing. Now the networks are confirming that the new Secretary of State will be Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson. Tillerson and Putin are pals from the early 90's when the young oil exec was negotiating drilling deals after the Soviet breakup.
Trump is clearly paving the path for a new Russian-American alliance and McCain and his lot in congress look tired and old trying to block it.

---

The question is what does the US get out of improved relations with Russia -and what does Russia get? TIME has a short piece on this from last month which says-

The U.S. could benefit from better relations with Russia in managing growing tensions with Europe, coordinating to help stabilize Middle East hot spots and even dealing with problems in Asia. Trump has a point that confrontation is pointless and that there is surely something to gain from toning down what might become a dangerous escalatory spiral in cyberconflict.

A new approach to Moscow might even appeal to those who mistrust Putin most and despise his government. Russia now faces a long period of economic decline, one brought about more by technological change in energy markets and Moscow’s own failure to modernize and diversify the Russian economy than by Western pressure. Perhaps the shortest path to change in Moscow is to deny Putin a foreign scapegoat as Russia’s economy becomes encased in rust.
http://time.com/4574480/us-russia-relationship/

-What puzzles me though is that from where I am sitting, Russia has been deepening its commitment to Syria and while I would not be surprised if Trump's administration removes support for all or part of the Syria opposition, the Russian presence in Syria rather than help solve the region's problems could make them worse. Is the Russian presence in Syria any better or worse than the US military presence in Saudi Arabia that led to 9/11? What TIME has not factored in is the likely response of Saudi Arabia, currently bogged down in an unwinnable war in the Yemen but most recently it has repaired its relations with the Taliban and is now shipping money to them via Pakistan. How Asad even governs a shattered country has yet to be considered, if we assume that Daesh is in decline and the rest of the opposition weakened to the point where their agenda for change is irrelevant. I am also puzzled by the reference to Europe where Putin is seen as a threat, notably to the Baltic states and where a harder line against the Russians remains the order of the day.

I can see that US-Russian relations could open up the Arctic for petroleum development if the two major powers agree to convene a conference to sort out which state owns which part of the Arctic, and although the long-term prospects are dependent to some extent on climate change making exploration and production easier, there is a lot of money to be made in the commitment to fossil fuels both Trump and Tillerson wish to make. Whether or not Putin would like to open the Russian economy to American capitalists I am not sure of, and it would probably be as risky a venture as it was when Yeltsin was in power, but Russia has suffered from chronic under-investment and the businessman in Trump clearly sees opportunities (and probably for himself and his family too).

So I can see the advantages of a new US-Russia relationship but it also has many dangers lurking in the background, and we have no idea how Trump as President will respond to challenges to American power abroad.

He'll replace Scalia on the court. Then he'll get a lesson in how much power he doesn't have.

Some of you may recall the story earlier this year which claimed that John Kasich had been offered the Vice-Presidency on the basis that he would be in control of day-to-day policy while Trump focused on 'making America great again'. On Fox News Trump not only said he is so smart he doesn't need to read daily intelligence briefings, but that this tedious business has been passed to Mike Pence and 'the Generals'. Maybe a President doesn't need to read these briefings, maybe it is the defence and intelligence lobby protecting their interests through daily reports, or maybe being President is too much for this man?

Another curious story -when Trump attacked Boeing for the costs of upgrading Airforce One, Boeing's share value fell knocking $1.4bn off the value of the company; after criticising Lockheed Martin for the costs of a new generation of fighter jets as being 'out of control' Lockheed shares fell by 3% wiping $3.5bn off the value of that company. Reckless comments from a man who has yet to set foot in the White House, or calculated comments designed to take advantage of a fall in the price of stock?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a7470046.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7468456.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

Some of you may recall the story earlier this year which claimed that John Kasich had been offered the Vice-Presidency on the basis that he would be in control of day-to-day policy while Trump focused on 'making America great again'. On Fox News Trump not only said he is so smart he doesn't need to read daily intelligence briefings, but that this tedious business has been passed to Mike Pence and 'the Generals'. Maybe a President doesn't need to read these briefings, maybe it is the defence and intelligence lobby protecting their interests through daily reports, or maybe being President is too much for this man?

Another curious story -when Trump attacked Boeing for the costs of upgrading Airforce One, Boeing's share value fell knocking $1.4bn off the value of the company; after criticising Lockheed Martin for the costs of a new generation of fighter jets as being 'out of control' Lockheed shares fell by 3% wiping $3.5bn off the value of that company. Reckless comments from a man who has yet to set foot in the White House, or calculated comments designed to take advantage of a fall in the price of stock?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...-a7470046.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a7468456.html

---

That story was one of the reasons why I voted against Trump. While there have been prior U.S. Presidents who were known for delegating some of their responsibilities, I don't think they did it because they wanted to be the hype man for "Making America Great Again". It also makes me wonder if he really wanted this job in the first place and/or didn't realize how hard the job was going to be.

As for his comments about Boeing and Lockheed Martin. I really don't know what to make of them. I would think Trump would be the last person in the world who would criticize a defense contractor about their costs being out of control. So maybe they were calculated comments. I wonder what the experts on CNBC and Fox Business think about it.

^^ i remember many speculating whether or not trump really wanted to be president considering he always seemed to be sabotaging his own campaign with his 3am twitter rants, but i think if anything he wanted to be president for his ego; plus his tax plans means his family will get around $7.1 billion in tax breaks while adding about $9 trillion to the national debt all while making sure foreign leaders help the family make a tidy sum of money with their various business dealings.

his daughter also recently closed a deal with a japanese clothing company which the country's government is a large stakeholder in all while she and her dad met the japanese prime minister, and while you can argue there is a possibility that they didn't mention this business deal, there's the question of why his daughter was at the meeting.

as to the lockheed comments, i know they have to do with his continued hate of the F-35 which has been going on since last year when he was convinced that it wasn't as good as the current fighter planes. also, remember trump hates trudeau, and trudeau agreed to purchase F-35, so in trump's eyes, he can't do the same thing. what he'd really love is to convince lockheed martin to stop production of F-35's thus embarrassing trudeau therefore proving he knows a lot about defense and and doesn't need military briefings, then, after a couple of private meetings with the ceo and board of directors of lockheed martin which wouldn't be open to the press, they'd agree upon a different project that would most likely cost about the same as the F-35 and would be surprisingly more useless; but all interested parties would again make a tidy sum of money.

http://www.rtlnieuws.nl/sites/defaul...ANYE-TRUMP.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xCTQ3brk6w

if i were him i'd have just gone for god instead of this whole man person thing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bluesoul

^^ i remember many speculating whether or not trump really wanted to be president considering he always seemed to be sabotaging his own campaign with his 3am twitter rants, but i think if anything he wanted to be president for his ego; plus his tax plans means his family will get around $7.1 billion in tax breaks while adding about $9 trillion to the national debt all while making sure foreign leaders help the family make a tidy sum of money with their various business dealings.

his daughter also recently closed a deal with a japanese clothing company which the country's government is a large stakeholder in all while she and her dad met the japanese prime minister, and while you can argue there is a possibility that they didn't mention this business deal, there's the question of why his daughter was at the meeting.

as to the lockheed comments, i know they have to do with his continued hate of the F-35 which has been going on since last year when he was convinced that it wasn't as good as the current fighter planes. also, remember trump hates trudeau, and trudeau agreed to purchase F-35, so in trump's eyes, he can't do the same thing. what he'd really love is to convince lockheed martin to stop production of F-35's thus embarrassing trudeau therefore proving he knows a lot about defense and and doesn't need military briefings, then, after a couple of private meetings with the ceo and board of directors of lockheed martin which wouldn't be open to the press, they'd agree upon a different project that would most likely cost about the same as the F-35 and would be surprisingly more useless; but all interested parties would again make a tidy sum of money.

---

The Business of America is Business -or the quote from Calvin Coolidge in full reads: After all, the chief business of the American people is business. They are profoundly concerned with producing, buying, selling, investing and prospering in the world.

As was once said of the Campaign to Re-Elect the President: Follow the Money.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2015...magArticle.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Budweiser

Ummm haven't you heard of a little thing called The ISIS? How about The Pulse? Hello!

---

The Hello! at the end of that post reads as incredibly camp to me. Like Richard Simmons level campiness. Which is neither good nor bad but I just wasn't sure if you knew that's what you were putting out there. Hello!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

The Hello! at the end of that post reads as incredibly camp to me. Like Richard Simmons level campiness. Which is neither good nor bad but I just wasn't sure if you knew that's what you were putting out there. Hello!

---

I would say the umm at the beginning of the post and calling Pulse nightclub "The Pulse" add to the effect. Not a bad thing at all.