Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 djones520 wrote:
Stocks as a whole seem to be up so far today.

You get that's because they dived by about 4% last night, right? While they're recovering, there's still a 250 point loss on the Dow compared to yesterday.

Interesting stuff coming out of the polling data.

Clinton suffered badly in areas that voted heavily in favour of Obama...

Some of these areas are predominantly white Americans....

Interesting....

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
We say we want better politicians, but we then elect someone with many of the worst qualities in humanity. And now we're going to get more like him, because if it worked for him, it will work for others.

The thing with politicians is, they tend to be nothing but reflections of the societies they stem from. So in other words, we always (or almost always) get the politicians we deserve.

Trump hasn't even been specially shady or convoluted. His campaign has been quite honest, I'd say. He employs very simple messages, and that has worked out.

Trump is the president the US deserve right now. That's the worrying part.

 djones520 wrote:
Stocks as a whole seem to be up so far today.

They always drop, before election and then shoot back up. It's just one of those things. It's like the stocks dropping when ever trump surged in the polls. Investors hate instability, it's interesting, but ultimately meaningless.

 Korinov wrote:


Trump hasn't even been specially shady or convoluted. His campaign has been quite honest, I'd say. He employs very simple messages, and that has worked out.

The second part is true, the first is not. It's just that his lies are extremely simple and easy to debunk.

Which apparently means that people will believe them.

No wonder they lost !




i think until Trump is actually in the Whitehouse -- and assuming the missiles aren't flying -- then it's a wee bit premature to worry about the stock market right now with regards to him/the govt. changeover.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Won't Republican Senators and Congress people have to go along with Trump?

What with the whole "if we don't, we look like traitors to the base who just voted him in?"

US congress representatives always used to vote according to local concerns rather than party affiliation a lot more than British MPs.

When they said the world would burn if Trump was elected, I thought it was figurative. At least the Buffalo areas has this to distract everyone from the election.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyBjiB_kI-Q

Equity markets are forward-looking. That's one reason why the small investor is usually wrong...they react to things that markets have already 'baked in'.

In this case, the markets are surprised, and they really don't like surprises.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Trump's potential problem, which he hasn't yet understood, is that his campaign has mobilised some forces at the grass roots that he may not be able to satisfy or control.

Making the Dune quote from above especially apropos.

 Spinner wrote:

 Korinov wrote:


Trump hasn't even been specially shady or convoluted. His campaign has been quite honest, I'd say. He employs very simple messages, and that has worked out.

The second part is true, the first is not. It's just that his lies are extremely simple and easy to debunk.

Which apparently means that people will believe them.

Eh yeah, of course he's lied. What I meant is, his approach to politics is incredibly blunt and simple. Most of the time he hasn't even made a real attempt to pass his (sometimes outrageous) lies or exaggerations as some complicated or convoluted message.

I'd even say this is probably where a good chunk of his success stems from, his ability to be seen as an honest, straight-to-the-point, uncomplicated "politician". When he lies, because of course politicians lie all the time, he doesn't even try to hide it. It's understandable why large amounts of the populace may find such an approach more likeable than someone as shady as Clinton.

My hope now is that Trump gave Pence the same offer he gave Kasic. Pence is a religious nut, but he's not a general nut.

BTW, anbody now how tge state elections went in NC? I'm interested to see if the bathroom bill guys got booted.

Yes, actually. The one good thing to come out of this election is that Fething McCrory got kicked out. Sadly, Burr beat Ross.

Wait, so now that Trump's been elected, do we get out our Mad Max gear?

Some politicians seem to be really happy that Trump made it, like Putin, Le Pen or Wilder.
I guess they made their calculations without the host (Trump).

 jreilly89 wrote:
Wait, so now that Trump's been elected, do we get out our Mad Max gear?

Putting the finishing touches on my Pursuit Special as we speak.

If you have a gyrocopter ready to go, let's roll.

 Ratius wrote:
Is there anyone on here that likes/endorses/backs Trump?
Out of interest?

Right here!

I've been politely keeping my nose out of this thread (wasn't my election to have a say in, by my reconing).
I voted for brexit and i've been quietly in support of trump because i could see the groundswell of anger at the status quo.
Just like us brits, the lower echelons of the American people have been ignored when it comes to foreign policy direction and economic policy; when you do that, you force them into action in the ballot box since there is no other recourse.
Thank feth we still have free speech in 'western nations'.

All Trump has to do to please his voters is upset the establishment - just following that 'contract with the American voter' will have him a second term in office.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

Interesting that the same people bemoaning brexit and trying to assure everyone that the UK economy is screwed and we'll 'remain' anyway, are all over in this thread saying trump will be a disaster.

I'm relieved because my sister, bro-in-law and neice are emigrating to D.C. at the end of the month and hillary's attitude to russia was making me concerned about a new cold war under clinton.
I might visit America for a holiday now.

 SirDonlad wrote:

 Ratius wrote:
Is there anyone on here that likes/endorses/backs Trump?
Out of interest?

Right here!

I've been politely keeping my nose out of this thread (wasn't my election to have a say in, by my reconing).
I voted for brexit and i've been quietly in support of trump because i could see the groundswell of anger at the status quo.
Just like us brits, the lower echelons of the American people have been ignored when it comes to policy direction and economic policy; when you do that, you force them into action in the ballot box since there is no other recourse.
Thank feth we still have free speech in 'western nations'.

All Trump has to do to please his voters is upset the establishment - just following that 'contract with the American voter' will have him a second term in office.
https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/_landings/contract/O-TRU-102316-Contractv02.pdf

Interesting that the same people bemoaning brexit and trying to assure everyone that the UK economy is screwed and we'll 'remain' anyway, are all over in this thread saying trump will be a disaster.

I'm relieved because my sister, bro-in-law and neice are emigrating to D.C. at the end of the month and hillary's attitude to russia was making me concerned about a new cold war under clinton.
I might visit America for a holiday now.

Amen to that!

tneva82 wrote:
He did not just promise a wall. He promised a wall paid by Mexico.

Just wait for him to invade the country to get the money that way.

Peter Thiel said something interesting about Trump at the National Press Club a while ago. Paraphrasing, it basically went:

Journalists take Trump literally but not seriously. They want to know how he'll build the wall or ban Muslims. Voters take Trump seriously but not literally. They believe he'll be stronger on illegal immigration and fighting Islamic terrorism, not that he'll build the wall or stop all Muslim immigration.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Interesting stuff coming out of the polling data.

Clinton suffered badly in areas that voted heavily in favour of Obama...

Some of these areas are predominantly white Americans....

Interesting....

It's almost as if four decades of wage depression relative to growth, deindustrialisation denuding whole regions of work, and anyone affected by aforementioned or expressing concern about it being vilified or high-handedly dismissed by a neoliberal centrism that painted any criticism of their economic policy as nothing more than a crypto-racist, crypto-misogyinist reaction to their social policy, as if all of that has had a negative impact on the desire of the decimated working class to turn out and vote for said neoliberal centrists, and has apparently inspired in some of them a desire to inflict some pain & bewilderment themselves for a change.

Shockarooni, eh.

 LordofHats wrote:
Under no conception of the term is Trump, a man who has been politically active for over 30 years (and run for president 3 times), not a member of the political class.

Which kind of just gets to the heart of why his win is so baffling. It's not that the anger and frustration isn't understandable. It's that people bemoaning his election don't understand how he is any of the things people seem to think he is, because he isn't. He's as you put it "a middle finger to the establishment" as if POTUS is something we should be deciding based on spite.

I said before that he was the Bella Swan of politics--all he had to do was be generically "rebellious", and everyone could project their own personal rebellion onto him.

What I've taken from this is that facts don't matter, what people want is a narrative. Trump was cast as the heroic outsider shaking up the system, and nothing ever really dented that. Working people voted for a millionaire who cheats on his taxes, Christians voted for an adulterer, and women voted for a sexual predator because of the sheer power of that storyline. It's even easier in the Information Age, where you can wrap yourself in an alternate world and don't need to agree with your opponents on even the most basic facts. Part of me hopes Trump delivers on every last crazy promise and has them go as horribly wrong as they can, just to see if anything can penetrate the power of the narrative.

America and the world survived Ronald Reagan just fine, so they'll probably survive this. But I think that the real damage has been to the way political campaigns are run, because the message has gone out that this is how you win elections.

The absurdity of this.

End Illegal Immigration Act
Fully-funds the construction of a wall on our southern
border with the full understanding that the country of
Mexico will be reimbursing the United States for the full cost
of such wall;

 SirDonlad wrote:
Just like us brits, the lower echelons of the American people have been ignored when it comes to foreign policy direction and economic policy; when you do that, you force them into action in the ballot box since there is no other recourse.

They've always been ignored though, and have been poor for a long time. Manufacturing, small towns, etc., have been dying since the 1970s.

I stand by my statement that much of this result was more specifically about a response to Obama and the past 8 years. He pushed his agenda *hard*, and it's not surprising there would be a backlash.

But you know, we'd still probably have had a different result had Hillary been able to motivate and mobilize her base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elemental wrote:
What I've taken from this is that facts don't matter, what people want is a narrative.

It's the foundation of any persuasive message.

What was Hillary's narrative, other than Trump is a disaster? Anyone?

Errr... I got a question for the USA citizens (or anyone else that might know), OK, Donald Trump is the new president, but isn't stuff like Congress and The House (or whaetver it's called) meant to regulate his potential?
In Greece for example the Government tried to restrict all television licences on national broadcast to a total of four. They voted for it easily enough, then it had to pass through what we call "Chamber of Overall" if I translate it right Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας. It is made up from 25 Supreme Judges whose verdict is always final. Guess what, all 25 rejected it, so the government has now scrambled back to try and save face. Isn't that also the case in the USA, or similar at least? I mean, it's not like the president always does as he likes, right?

People who are trying to examine this along the lines of Republican-Democrat are using the wrong filter.

It was always about Establishment/Antiestablishment.

Obama was elected, twice, by being the candidate of change. Both times he ran against a decidedly establishment opponent; John 'never found a war I didn't love' McCain, and Mitt Romney.

Problem is, Obama's platform quickly became indistinguishable from the establishment. Hillary Clinton isn't any different. Take her social stances (that flop based on expediency) out of it and she is indistinguishable from John McCain.

That's why the Trump offering is unique; he's the anti-establishment candidate in a field that included Jeb Bush and the Clintons (and there was never any distinction between these two). Leftists are frightened of his rhetoric--IMO it's a persona; Trump's acceptance speech was quite good and demonstrated a swift pivot to the center.

He was bombastic throughout the campaign because it got him $5 billion in free media coverage (look up QuantMedia). Now he's turning statesmanlike, and I wouldn't be surprised if he becomes shockingly centrist, neither punishing the extreme left nor pandering to the extrem right. remember, this guy was a democrat for many years.

We've got a 4-year break from identity politics.

 Yodhrin wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Interesting stuff coming out of the polling data.

Clinton suffered badly in areas that voted heavily in favour of Obama...

Some of these areas are predominantly white Americans....

Interesting....

It's almost as if four decades of wage depression relative to growth, deindustrialisation denuding whole regions of work, and anyone affected by aforementioned or expressing concern about it being vilified or high-handedly dismissed by a neoliberal centrism that painted any criticism of their economic policy as nothing more than a crypto-racist, crypto-misogyinist reaction to their social policy, as if all of that has had a negative impact on the desire of the decimated working class to turn out and vote for said neoliberal centrists, and has apparently inspired in some of them a desire to inflict some pain & bewilderment themselves for a change.

Shockarooni, eh.

Yep, the fact that Trump support was stacked with low education white voters, adopted a policy of blaming outsiders and Muslims, and has embraced fringe groups and Trump openly mocked women based on appearance totally makes that misogynist/racist critique look invalid. Wait.... Fortunately for him, Clinton was a pretty terrible candidate.

Yes, the working class has taken a hit. And in true reactionary faction, they have selected demagogue to lead them. Fortunately, the democratic process has contained the misdirected anger to a greater degree than some systems. Unfortunately, they have still voted against their own interests. The idea that a self aggrandizing billionaire who inherited his wealth base, and is neck deep in the corporate oligarchy that undermined the American working class will somehow help them would be laughable if it weren't so sad.

Pertaining to Shieldwolf Miniatures' post.
No, it's not always the case, but right now every branch of government is controlled by one party. Trump (a Republican) will nominate a conservative justice, swinging the Supreme Court right, and currently both the House and Senate have Republican majorities.
The current state of things looks grim because of this. Checks and balances will not function for at least two years (if Democrats upset the house and Senate in 2018) and more likely four years (if a Democratic president defeats Trump in 2020).

 Shieldwolf Miniatures wrote:
Errr... I got a question for the USA citizens (or anyone else that might know), OK, Donald Trump is the new president, but isn't stuff like Congress and The House (or whaetver it's called) meant to regulate his potential?
In Greece for example the Government tried to restrict all television licences on national broadcast to a total of four. They voted for it easily enough, then it had to pass through what we call "Chamber of Overall" if I translate it right Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας. It is made up from 25 Supreme Judges whose verdict is always final. Guess what, all 25 rejected it, so the government has now scrambled back to try and save face. Isn't that also the case in the USA, or similar at least? I mean, it's not like the president always does as he likes, right?

The US has congress, where elected representatives vote on legislation.

However congress is currently controlled by Republicans, the same party as Trump.

It remains to be seen whether they will actually put any checks and balances on Trump but personally I'm not really holding my breath. These are the same people who blamed Obama for not telling them a law allowing US citizens to sue foreign countries was dumb after they voted for it twice due to Obama vetoing it the first time.

 Shieldwolf Miniatures wrote:
Errr... I got a question for the USA citizens (or anyone else that might know), OK, Donald Trump is the new president, but isn't stuff like Congress and The House (or whaetver it's called) meant to regulate his potential?

The recurring theme of the past 8 years is that we have a broken system. The system broke with the Bushes, and Obama promised to fix it (Hope, Change, and Unity, remember?) but largely didn't.

The Mandate of the People with the 'clean sweep' of the Execute, Legislate, and very likely Judicial branch is going to have to manifest itself itself in repairing the political system and showing ability to resolve orders of business. "Figure out how trade, borders, and response to violent conflict/terror are supposed to work, folks." In this way Trump actually has a stronger mandate than Obama did.

If no progress is made, especially with an unfriendly media, disgust will be palpable.

 Shieldwolf Miniatures wrote:
Errr... I got a question for the USA citizens (or anyone else that might know), OK, Donald Trump is the new president, but isn't stuff like Congress and The House (or whaetver it's called) meant to regulate his potential?
In Greece for example the Government tried to restrict all television licences on national broadcast to a total of four. They voted for it easily enough, then it had to pass through what we call "Chamber of Overall" if I translate it right Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας. It is made up from 25 Supreme Judges whose verdict is always final. Guess what, all 25 rejected it, so the government has now scrambled back to try and save face. Isn't that also the case in the USA, or similar at least? I mean, it's not like the president always does as he likes, right?

Yes, congress is supposed to regulate him/work with him on issues.... the problem is though.... they are pretty much all controlled by "Team R" and there are vacancies in the supreme court, so they can fill those slots with someone who is going to damagingly think like they do.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Shieldwolf Miniatures wrote:
Errr... I got a question for the USA citizens (or anyone else that might know), OK, Donald Trump is the new president, but isn't stuff like Congress and The House (or whaetver it's called) meant to regulate his potential?
In Greece for example the Government tried to restrict all television licences on national broadcast to a total of four. They voted for it easily enough, then it had to pass through what we call "Chamber of Overall" if I translate it right Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας. It is made up from 25 Supreme Judges whose verdict is always final. Guess what, all 25 rejected it, so the government has now scrambled back to try and save face. Isn't that also the case in the USA, or similar at least? I mean, it's not like the president always does as he likes, right?

The US has congress, where elected representatives vote on legislation.

However congress is currently controlled by Republicans, the same party as Trump.

It remains to be seen whether they will actually put any checks and balances on Trump but personally I'm not really holding my breath. These are the same people who blamed Obama for not telling them a law allowing US citizens to sue foreign countries was dumb after they voted for it twice due to Obama vetoing it the first time.

You forgot they are about to get their SCotUS people in too. so they will have full control. Let the bible thumping begin!

Thanks Baby Boomers! They had to give us one more middle finger on the way out.