US presidential elections

[Jan]

I don't want to go too political and I know I'm asking for troubles, but I'll just say one thing: you, our great friends over the ocean, do not dare to screw it up today. We cannot afford another disaster after the Brexit! Fingers crossed and hoping to wake up tomorrow into a better morning than on that Friday one a couple of months ago.

May the better one win, whoever she is.

[Sophia]

They already screwed this one up months ago.

Hillary Clinton is a rotten liar who epitomizes business as usual and political corruption. But what alternative is there? An irrational asshole who is basically unfit for public office? So, sure, she's the "better" choice, but that's not exactly a high standard.

[Jan]

Bloody hell! This is a nightmare. This shouldn't have happened. Now there's and orangutan as the US president and another one as the UK foreign secretary. I expect to see Russian tanks in the Baltic states by the end of March 2017. I feel physically sick and need a lot of whisky today.

PS Sophia, of course you're right and I agree completely, but the choice was between two candidates and thus - again - between a lesser and a bigger evil...

[Sophia]

The problem is that when you go down that deep in the muck the distinctions between the lesser and greater evil start to get... well, muddy. That's not to say they aren't there, I do think Hillary Clinton was the lesser evil, but throw enough evil on the pile and the finer points start to get lost. I mean, seriously, the amount of crime and scandal surrounding her was pretty hard to swallow. Add to that the fact that she probably screwed over her primary opponent to get the Democratic nomination in the first place. That's really the best candidate the Democrats could field? Of course not, but she had the money, the power, and the leverage, so she was going to damn well take the nomination and the presidency, to hell with anyone who got in the way. The mainstream Republicans weren't any good either. They were a bunch of political hacks parroting the same tired old Bush-esque ideas, mostly. So out of this mess of undesirables, what happens is that a lot of people got sick of it all and went for something different. It didn't matter that he had no coherent policy platform, it didn't even matter that he didn't even seem competent to hold office-- the only thing that mattered was that he was not the one of the same garbage candidates that were being shoved down our throats by the major party political machines. He was far worse, but he was different, and that was all that mattered to his supporters.

If anything good comes out of this, it will be that we get the repudiation of the entrenched political elite that Donald Trump supposedly offered. Not because he'll do great things, of course. I don't have much confidence in that. Rather, hopefully, the political powers that be will come to the cold sobering realization that the system is broken enough that we elected Donald Trump president. Then the reform can come, and hopefully create a system where we get candidates that are worth something, not the ones that are shoved in our faces by a cynical party apparatus because they clawed their way to the top of the heap and have the celebrity status and the money to dictate terms. Because, ultimately, Donald Trump managed to acquire plenty of the latter two without the blessing of any political hacks, and he ran away with the game... and so, here we are.

[zoinkers]

There's a lot of people that lectured about how the markets would collapse if there was a Brexit, and most of the harm following the vote was arguably because of the predictions of doom and gloom from politicians and bankers. The markets have since rebounded. There were a lot of accusations that anyone who voted for leave, were racist or worse. After the loss, many of the most vocal in the minority who lost bemoaned ignorance in the majority who won. Claiming they'd leave if they didn't get their way.

The polls were pretty much for a Hillary win. There was prognostication about doom and gloom after a Trump win.. and the next morning, the markets are rebounding already. After the loss, we see the immature acting out burning rubbish bins, and a vocal minority laying blame about the irrational or ignorant who didn't agree with them. And claims that people are going to leave the USA, with stories about how views on other countries immigration web sites are up or have taken the sites down.

I'm tired of people who want one thing, declaring that people who don't want what they want, are ignorant or irrational. I can't even read political web sites where discussion of anything other than what the mob wants, results in a pile on, and derision and bullying. For people who see themselves so solidly in the right of things, the Brexit Remain supporters and the Clinton supporters, seem to often see it as their right to dictate how it should be and bully anyone who doesn't agree and declare what not agreeing with them means.

The majority chose a Brexit Leave. The majority chose a Trump president. The majority did not want a Brexit remain. The majority did not want a Clinton president. Anyone in the minority didn't expect or understand why someone would choose what they didn't want, and so were surprised and often outraged when they didn't get it. And now after the fact, despite declaring why someone would choose what they didn't want and being wrong beforehand, they still find themselves declaring why people chose what they didn't want - and still being wrong.

How many people turned up and voted for a Brexit Leave, who otherwise wouldn't have, because the Remainers asserted they were deplorable in order to emotionally blackmail the result they wanted? How many people turned up and voted for a Trump presidency, who otherwise wouldn't have, because Clinton and her supporters asserted they were deplorable at some level to achieve the same? I suspect quite a few.

Stop telling me who I am because I do not agree with you. Stop trying to emotionally blackmail me into choosing your preferred option.

I may not be English, but I am pro-Brexit and see a UK leaving it as a step towards a better world.
I may not be American, but I am anti-Hillary and see a USA as better even under Trump, and having the potential of being a step towards a better world.

In my opinion, the right choices were made and the world is finally heading in the right direction. Don't condescend to tell me I am wrong because it's not what you would want. It's just wrong in your opinion.

[Sophia]

Trump being an outsider and fundamentally different from those other guys was one of his major campaign platforms, both in the primary and in the general election. Saying that people voted for him for that reason isn't declaring anything other than what his own campaign and his own supporters have said. Me saying that he was that and also the worst option is of course simply my own opinion, but I thought it was pretty clear that was the case, because obviously his supporters wouldn't think that or they wouldn't be his supporters.

Anyway, I'm not sure how familiar you are with the American system of electing the president, but it's quite a bit byzantine and awkward. Trump's victory is only conclusive in the electoral college, which is the only thing that actually matters to determine the presidency, but, as a point of fact, the majority actually did not choose Trump as president. The current count says he got 47% of the popular vote, which is not a majority. It's likely he won't even win a plurality, with current counts saying Clinton got 48%. That does make it correct to say that the majority did not want her as president either, though when talking about majorities and minorities it's perhaps more relevant to note that Clinton (probably) got a higher share of the popular vote than Trump did.

Either way, it's hardly a decisive majority, so I think it's less of a majority's will being clearly heard and a petulant minority that refused to accept it, and more of a very tight race that went one way instead of another. He's definitely going to have to leave behind his previous polarizing rhetoric ("Nasty woman! Lock her up!") and govern more inclusively. For what it's worth, I would've said the same thing in the event of a Clinton victory with margins this close. To his credit, his magnanimous victory speech was a step in this direction.

Personally, I wouldn't have been incredibly happy with either choice, and I do feel that we ended up with the worse of the two options... but of course nobody can even pretend to know at this point how it's all going to play out. So, yeah, the current market fluctuations are probably just nervousness. We won't know the actual economic effect of a Trump presidency until he actually takes office and starts doing things. I'm not optimistic based on what research I've done, but that, too, is just my opinion.

[Bit]

Going for president with his political experience, that's just a strange kind of comitting suicide.

[Ameena]

The result of the UK-departure-of-Europe vote (I' can't stand the term "Brexit") was something like 51% vs 49%. Super close. And apparently even the people campaigning to leave the EU didn't think they'd win. What? Personally, I didn't even bother voting because if I'm ever going to vote on something, I want it to be because I have developed a fully informed opinion on the matter and can be confident that what I'm voting for is the best option in my opinion. But in the case of politics I can't do that, because of course everyone is going to tell you what they think you want to hear in order that you'll vote for them, regardless of how it will really turn out in the end or whether they intend to actually do what they said they'd do. It's why I've never voted .
As for the US stuff, I think Trump is a complete and total knob but don't really know much abuot Hilary Clinton because I can't say I followed the whole election lead-up particularly closely. But apparently they're both twats, it's just that some people think one is a bit les of a twat than the other, or something. It seems weird that there are only two cohices of person to vote for - what happens if someone else wants to try and be President? Actually...hmm...the people who want to be in charge are usually the people who shouldn't be, precisely because theyy want it. So maybe that wouldn't work either...
Well, regardless, all we can do now is wait and see what happens, I suppose...

[Gambit37]

There's a lot of people that lectured about how the markets would collapse if there was a Brexit, and most of the harm following the vote was arguably because of the predictions of doom and gloom from politicians and bankers. The markets have since rebounded.

I hate to point out the bleeding obvious, but we've not actually had Brexit yet. The market definitely won't "rebound" after Brexit, not in the way you seem to be suggesting.

As for Trump in office, here's what he wants to do in hist first 100 days. From any perspective, there's a lot here that cannot be classed as progress:

http://www.npr.org/2016/11/09/501451368 ... t-100-days

[Ameena]

Since I know very little about the way American politics works, I don't know what all that stuff referring to the Congress and other stuff is about, but from what I can gather it seems like he wants to kick out all "illegal immigrants" (does he want to start with himself, then?) and withdraw the USA from various international thingys (like some UN thing relating to climate change). And build that wall thingy across the border with Mexico and make them pay for it(Seriously? He's actually going to try doing that?). It seems like he wants to isolate the USA from the rest of the world and not let anyone in or out, and also some bad stuff about China, or something. Sigh. Well, let's see how it all turns out, shall we...

[Saumun]

I hate to point out the bleeding obvious, but we've not actually had Brexit yet.

Indeed... We haven't even 'started' to have Brexit. Article 50 won't be triggered for months yet, and then it could potentially be two more years for the negotiation.

On the subject of why people voted as they did...

How many people turned up and voted for a Brexit Leave, who otherwise wouldn't have, because the Remainers asserted they were deplorable in order to emotionally blackmail the result they wanted?

I'm not sure people voted purely out of spite for the remain side... and if they did, it strengthens the idiocy claim.
There seems to be a popular belief amongst the pro-leavers now that the 'remain' side are so condescending as to think that all 'leavers' are idiots. I don't believe this to be the case. It is subtly different.
I personally wanted to remain and don't think all leavers are stupid, but mostly all stupid people voted to leave. This is not an emotional position, rather from simple observation.

As far as the US election goes, I see Jan's original point that it will certainly bolster Mr. Putin's ambitions if Trump's NATO comments are anything to go by. Though I do think that it is primarily a matter for US citizens (it their election after all), there is a bigger knock-on to other nations than any other election would have.

[Sophia]

It seems weird that there are only two cohices of person to vote for - what happens if someone else wants to try and be President?

There are only two main choices because there are only two main parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. Each party holds its own primary elections, a few months before the general election, which generally include a lot more candidates, and this narrows down all of the people who are running to one candidate per party. Then the party is expected to come together, so all of the people who were saying nasty things about each other during the primary are suddenly expected to back the candidate the party chose, and the process of doing this is about as cynical as you would expect it to be.

There are a bunch of smaller parties but they rarely get much support: in this election, all of the other parties put together got around 5% of the vote. Given how disliked both of the major party candidates were I was hoping there would be a lot more support for smaller parties but it seems like that didn't materialize.

[Ameena]

Hmm, yeah, I can see how that must be kind of...awkward. Here we have a whole bunch of parties and you do actually hear about them in the lead-up to election time, though similarly to the USA there are two parties who are bigger and ge more votes than any other - Labour and the Conservatives...though the LIberal Democrats tend to come in a close third, to the point that they were such a close second a few years back that the gonvernment actually ended up being a coalition between them and the Conservatives (the leader of the Conservatives, David Cameron, was Prime Minister while the leader of the Lib Dems, Nick Clegg, was Deputy PM).
Anyway, I don't know how heavily "advertised" the non-Clinton-and-Trump parties were over there, but from what I could see (not that I really followed the details particularly closely) there was no mention made of anyone other than those two on our news. Well, occasionally some other name would pop up but I had no idea who they were so they could well have been a member of the main two parties. I wonder if it's just generally more difficult over there, because you have so many more people (than us in the UK, I mean) and all the states have their own different laws and stuff, and yet one single person is expected to be in charge of all of it.
If Donald Trump really is as big as a twattish gimboid that he has come across as on TV, I kind of feel sorry for all the people over there who didn't vote for him yet will still have to put up with his super-ultra-mega-twattery for the next several years .

[Jan]

I keep wondering whether all the significant and (subjectively seen) rather nasty stuff that's been happening in the Western societies and politics for several years now -- the "post-truth" era, the decline of traditional media and the increasing strength of various "social" media where anything is possible and everything is true, the "uprising" of the "masses" against the "elites", the growth of nationalism and populism and isolationism, the decline of traditional ideologically based parties and the growth of various "new" and "non-political" and "manager-style" movements with "strong" and "honest" leaders, etc. etc. -- whether this is only a short-time fashion that will disappear sooner or later and we'll get back to "business as usual", or whether this really is a new "status quo" and it will remain here for a long time or forever and will change our politics forever. I mean we can see this happening everywhere, on both sides of the Atlantic, it's the same in my country.

I really am afraid that the traditional political system that has been here for many decades is changing... crumbling...

On the one hand it's quite an interesting stuff to watch and think about - especially when I'm a geographer - but on the other hand it worries me, because, frankly, with our 20th century history I was quite happy with the political matters as they were - even a year ago. I was not excited and I saw the flaws but this is not the way I wanted us to proceed.

[Saumun]

Well, the pollsters have got it badly wrong twice now (Brexit and US Election), and I'm wondering what the sudden decline in reliability is down to. I know polls can and have been wrong, but they're not usually as wide of the mark as this. I confess I don't know all the sources they use for these polls, but could this be the social media element? More opportunity for direct dialogue with more people than ever before. Dissemination of information (and just as crucially, misinformation) like never before in history.

There does indeed seem to be a leaning towards isolationism (in geographical terms), and national fervour that is rather worrying. Whether this leads to an extreme level remains to be seen. We all know what ultranationalism has lead to in the past, and it's a sickening thought.

[Sophia]

I really am afraid that the traditional political system that has been here for many decades is changing... crumbling...

You might be right, and, on some level, I'm not even sure if this is a bad thing. Demagoguery and radical isolationism is obviously bad, but a certain amount of populism and shaking up entrenched elites is not so bad.

Hillary Clinton ran a really cynical campaign, even by the standards of political campaigns. There may have been a certain amount of idealism in her rhetoric, but there was also condescension and hubris. She and her team approached the entire thing with the idea that the election was theirs, that it was their time, they were entitled to the presidency and all they had to do was come in and take it and the American people would hand it to them on a silver platter. The notion that with her baggage and scandals she might not be the best candidate for the Democratic party or for the country was brushed aside. When someone like Bernie Sanders had the audacity to stand up to the Clinton machine, they used their connections and their power in the party to wreck his candidacy and force him into line, and ensured that Hillary Clinton got the nomination. If you believe the leaked emails, the Clinton campaign even quietly propped up the Trump campaign during the primary believing that having an opponent so audacious would mean that people basically "had" to vote for her.

And what happened? She lost.

That isn't to say that Donald Trump's campaign wasn't its own unique brand of awful, because it obviously was, and, in terms of governance, I have the sinking feeling that we ended up with the greater of two evils. However, if this election at least ends up being a reckoning for the insulting "you'll take whatever we give you and say thank you" style of campaign that has unfortunately pervaded American politics for too long, that's at least a good thing that will come out of it.

[terkio]

I like Sofia's analysis and hope the elites will understand the backslash.

[Saumun]

As has been intimated, the political establishment should not take the people's consent for granted.... and that's not a bad thing, but how far should it go? Should it conform to an accepted standard of decency and tolerance, or challenge these ideals and push towards a more survivalist agenda?
I'd personally side with the former. To me, a country is nothing more than a piece of land on the surface of a much larger one.

[Jan]

Well, the pollsters have got it badly wrong twice now (Brexit and US Election), and I'm wondering what the sudden decline in reliability is down to. I know polls can and have been wrong, but they're not usually as wide of the mark as this.

Well, I think there might be several explanations there, all working at the same time:

1. Both in Brexit and in the US Elections the results were quite narrow and very close to the statistical error; in fact, Mrs. Clinton actually won in terms of total votes count, but the complex electoral system makes it very hard to predict the outcome of the elections because you have to treat each of the 50 states separately.

2. There exists a "shame" factor - in the polls, certain people feel ashamed to confess they're going to vote for a candidate that the media or elites or even the pollsters might be seeing as "extreme". It often happens with the Communist party here in our country where some of the voters feel sort of "ashamed" but vote for them anyway - this might have happened with some Brexit and Trump supporters.

3. There's an "anger" factor - Brexit and Trump supporters were more angry and thus more determined to vote - they voted for a change, whereas the Remain and Clinton supporters were more in favour of status quo and thus felt a weaker determination to get up, go out and vote. Again, this often happens when there's a clash of "change" and "status quo" parties.

4. The polls might have worked against Remain and Clinton in the way that their supporters saw that their side was probably going to win and thus well lulled into a false sense of calmness and might have decided not to get up and go and vote because they thought it'd be a walkover anyway, even without their own personal vote; whereas the Leave and Trump supporters might have felt an urgency to go and revert the predicted unfavourable outcome - so, tragically, the polls might have mobilised the Brexit and Trump supporters.

[Bit]

At least the total desaster could be avoided today. France stays to Europe.

[Chaos-Shaman]

I am glad Mr Trump won. He is inexperienced, an orange, and all of the above, but he was nowhere near as evil as Hitlery. That thing promoted the middle east wars. I got so angry watching that thing do that. It's subhuman and probably the most dirty politician we've ever seen. It tried to use sexism, racism, religion, you name it to disgrace Trump which backfired. I learned how horrible the Clintons were when the war in Syria started, I watched that thing tell the Syria people to attack their legitimate government, causing a long war and producing millions of refugee's. Hitlery should be hung for the deaths it has caused. If people only looked at its history, it has caused havoc on so many around the world while Mr Trump created jobs. Sure he is a tough cookie and smug and all that, but he has no record of creating wars and suffering like that thing did. No more regimes. They should not allow close relatives to take office to prevent the regimes from forming. That's my nickels worth, glad the elections are over. I'm tired of hearing about it. As for France, that has yet to be seen whether this young fella can protect the country. When the Mosques start going up then we'll see the truth. France was getting away from religion and now it opens its doors to hell once more. I wish them luck. Religion is the death of free countries, and history shows what religion does yet we continue to allow it to destroy, religion is like beta fish, they'll always war.

[Paul Stevens]

I disagree. But there is some truth in what you say.

We might have had Cruz; a man who insists the world
is 6000 years old.

[Chaos-Shaman]

CRUZ, lol, he's a slippery tongued religious nut. This is one of those things, when people learn how to abuse wording, and Mr Cruz nut job is exactly that. I was a liberal for all my life until this election. I think Trump is a bad pick, but he will learn, Hitlery has been in the corruption business for decades. It was sexist and who was the real divider of America. Obama was an example of when you don't take situations on and let them build and then having to deal with the hardships later. Sometimes we have to take and deal out the medicine, no matter how harsh it may seem, just ask a doctor how that works. Not all can be happy, that's life.

[Sophia]

Honestly, the 'Hitlery' nickname and the dehumanizing pronouns you use in reference to Hillary Clinton just make you seem churlish and vaguely misogynist.

[Ameena]

See, I only just worked out that that's whom "Hitlery" was referring to - wasn't even sure you were talking about a person prior to that. I've not heard a huge amount about Hilary Clinton so I don't know a great deal about her other than that she was apparently about as bad an option as Trump, but I'm not sure that comparing her to the most notorious political leader of the 20th century can possibly be accurate at this time. I mean, she hasn't invaded anyone's country or attempted to commit genocide or anything, has she?

[Chaos-Shaman]

Honestly, the 'Hitlery' nickname and the dehumanizing pronouns you use in reference to Hillary Clinton just make you seem churlish and vaguely misogynist.

Don't start Sophia, It is exactly how I feel about IT. Your remark is unfriendly and uneducated about how terrible IT is. I paid attention and name calling wouldn't hurt my feelings, I'm mature and that it means very little to me. However what is happening around the world concerns me, I do have children and grandchildren to worry about, and this election has terrified me. We're in trouble. Being complacent right now is a bad idea. I don't know how much you have read up on IT but I certainly have spent days if not weeks researching IT. Now if we step back here, you can see I gave my nickels worth and there was no need for insults. You seem to at every chance that your'e going to try and needle the situation, be my guest, show your age. I have no quarrel with you, but I am capable if that's what you find interesting. I find it immature. I'd rather work with you but that just seems impossible Is there anything positive to say? I'm waiting for that day, it will be a happy one.

[Chaos-Shaman]

I mean, she hasn't invaded anyone's country or attempted to commit genocide or anything, has she?

Yeah, I hear ya there Ameena.

I will never say IT''s name. My conclusion about IT is that it is tyrannical in nature. It promoted the wars in the middle east which I can say I had a lot to say on chat sites as soon as I saw IT announce to the Syria people to attack its government. It has affected countries in the middle east and created such hate in N America, divisive, sexist, tried to use race and religion to win an election. If IT had of won I can't imagine how bad it would have been. The media lied their Butts off that IT was going to win, they were so wrong about that. I think we need to be careful about tyranny. I will state that we are all UNIQUE but it seems N America wants to remove that and make us all the same which is horrible. I am proud to be different and I don't share it with others, and I hope people are the same in that way, everyone is beautiful in their own way. We should all have the same chances to make good of our lives, and be unique. I no longer believe in the media or governments anymore. They ruined that this past election.

[Paul Stevens]

They ruined that this past election.

Whatever the cause.....SOMETHING ruined the past election.
On both sides of the aisle. I think perhaps it was money.

[terkio]

Don't you think the same dirty game was played on the french people on April 23th 2017 May 7th 2017 ?
The given choice was 2 scarecrows ( nazi like and communist like ) versus the candidate created by the extablishement.
All was crooked from A to Z way ahead.

[Sophia]

I will never say IT''s name.

What I posted was my opinion of how your post came across. Just an impression. Sure, the adjectives used were negative, certainly, but it was a negative opinion. It was not intended as a personal insult; I hate passive-aggression so it's very, very clear when I intend to insult someone. Words that start with f are sometimes involved.

Anyway, you really can't take this moral and intellectual high road and at the same time say stuff like "I will never say IT's name" like you're some wizard talking about Voldemort or something. If you want to have a reasonable debate about this, maybe we can have one, but first you'll have to drop that silliness and use actual names and pronouns like people do when they're having a reasonable debate.