|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 09 2016 21:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:14 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 21:01 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure people are overreacting to this. It's certainly worrisome in some concrete ways but the man isn't going to destroy the world in 4 years. Presidents aren't omnipotent, especially ones like Trump who will even have members of his own party giving him endless shit.
Not to mention Donald is such a wildcard who in the flying fuck knows what he will really do when he actually has power. I'm pretty sure he knew most if not all of his grand ideas were impossible. He just knew he could strike a cord with the dullard masses and become President saying it... I think it is a good opportunity to purposely leverage peoples fear of Trump to make them realize that Europe doesn't need to be Americas lapdog. Look at what America did people. If we start falling apart as a continent now and don't instead unite in the face of this potential source of fascism, we will succumb to it as well -- if not by voting for it ourselves like idiots, then by the nuclear bombs from them or the current or next lunatic that runs Russia. Or maybe it will be terrorism, or global warming that gets us. In none of these cases can we rely on the Americans to lead us to a world of sensibility, we are going to have to do it ourselves. It's time to organize and unite Europe. Here's to the rest of our lives. That would be great. NATO has ceased to fill any function except as a welfare security check to European countries since the collapse of the USSR. I wonder how you guys are going to pay for your lavish welfare states on top of increased military spending once NATO vanishes?
As long as the EU sticks together, we already have a military large enough to deal with any threat (except the US). Since the main threat to NATO is basically russia, the fact remains that the EU budget dwarfs russias due to the simple fact that the EU economy dwarfs the russian economy. We do not have the necessary security funds to fund american-style intervention poltics all over the world, but on the other hand, those also don't appear to be working very well.
|
Trump will have to fight his own VP, the legislative branch, and the State Department tooth and claw to make any meaningful change to America's role in NATO. The Iran deal is more troublesome (though I have no idea what his alternative is, just sanctioning them again or something?)
|
On November 09 2016 21:34 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:27 WhiteDog wrote:On November 09 2016 21:06 oneofthem wrote:
it was there, just not quantified. he captivated the popular imagination.
problem is running against 'the people' isnt likely to win, even if it is the right thing to do
whatever trump does wont help rural america, but at least they can die happy I agree entirely with this statement : Trump is the opium of the masses. But still, it worked because the left totally converted itself to economic liberalism and lost what once was its stronghold. This is interesting point but in America the "left" or democrats always where economic liberalists. It is in Europe that I can see this become an issue but in the usa not so much. Maybe it is more that people used to believe in globalization,beeing "educated" by the media and now they slowly get confronted with the results of globalization and they are not happy with that.
I think the fact that Democrats showed great enthusiasm for Sanders in the primaries is a clear sign that Democrats were not always economic liberals.
|
On November 09 2016 20:46 Introvert wrote:
Don't know why I'm still up, but she does, in the end, win the popular vote. You Democrats have got to stop packing yourselves into these states! Spread out, the rest of America isn't so bad!
How about switching from a state by state system with presidential electors to a nation-wide system where the popularity actually decides the outcome? It's one of the issues and reasons I have a hard time calling the system in the US democratic. I mean, how is it "the will of the people" if the majority votes for one candidate but the other one can still win? Doesn't really make sense to me.
|
On November 09 2016 21:29 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:08 Penev wrote:On November 09 2016 20:53 pmh wrote:On November 09 2016 14:16 zeo wrote:
What a huge fuck you to the mainstream media. Feels so good. ya this so much the brexit mentality I honestly have no clue what you mean with this. But when the media try to influence the people in a specific direction every single day one after another, then that does bother me as it does take away the power from the people and undermines the democratic process as a whole. But then when it appears that the people are able to see through this massive manipulation and don't give a shit about it (a manipulation many people here apearently support or at least don't care about) then ya it does feel good, ha ha.
If the mentality you are portraying did (or would have) affect(ed) your vote than that would be what I meant by brexit mentality.
"I vote Trump cuz fuck the establishment/ media"
If you voted (or would have) for Trump for different reasons than it doesn't apply to you
|
On November 09 2016 21:39 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:34 pmh wrote:On November 09 2016 21:27 WhiteDog wrote:On November 09 2016 21:06 oneofthem wrote:
it was there, just not quantified. he captivated the popular imagination.
problem is running against 'the people' isnt likely to win, even if it is the right thing to do
whatever trump does wont help rural america, but at least they can die happy I agree entirely with this statement : Trump is the opium of the masses. But still, it worked because the left totally converted itself to economic liberalism and lost what once was its stronghold. This is interesting point but in America the "left" or democrats always where economic liberalists. It is in Europe that I can see this become an issue but in the usa not so much. Maybe it is more that people used to believe in globalization,beeing "educated" by the media and now they slowly get confronted with the results of globalization and they are not happy with that. I think the fact that Democrats showed great enthusiasm for Sanders in the primaries is a clear sign that Democrats were not always economic liberals.
Sanders is a new movement though in the democratic party,a movement not seen in American history before. Maybe the "flower power" movement from the 60,s in the previous century comes close though that was still a bit different, more a popular movement then a political movement. Before Obama you had Clinton,who would also fit the economic liberalist tag pretty well I think.
The way I see it is that the democrats where always economic liberalists and the majority of americans supported this,but now it is the voters that changed their preference (and not the party that did change its economic direction) and are no longer 100% supporters of the economic liberalism.
|
On November 09 2016 21:36 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:14 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 21:01 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure people are overreacting to this. It's certainly worrisome in some concrete ways but the man isn't going to destroy the world in 4 years. Presidents aren't omnipotent, especially ones like Trump who will even have members of his own party giving him endless shit.
Not to mention Donald is such a wildcard who in the flying fuck knows what he will really do when he actually has power. I'm pretty sure he knew most if not all of his grand ideas were impossible. He just knew he could strike a cord with the dullard masses and become President saying it... I think it is a good opportunity to purposely leverage peoples fear of Trump to make them realize that Europe doesn't need to be Americas lapdog. Look at what America did people. If we start falling apart as a continent now and don't instead unite in the face of this potential source of fascism, we will succumb to it as well -- if not by voting for it ourselves like idiots, then by the nuclear bombs from them or the current or next lunatic that runs Russia. Or maybe it will be terrorism, or global warming that gets us. In none of these cases can we rely on the Americans to lead us to a world of sensibility, we are going to have to do it ourselves. It's time to organize and unite Europe. Here's to the rest of our lives. That would be great. NATO has ceased to fill any function except as a welfare security check to European countries since the collapse of the USSR. I wonder how you guys are going to pay for your lavish welfare states on top of increased military spending once NATO vanishes? As long as the EU sticks together, we already have a military large enough to deal with any threat (except the US). Since the main threat to NATO is basically russia, the fact remains that the EU budget dwarfs russias due to the simple fact that the EU economy dwarfs the russian economy. We do not have the necessary security funds to fund american-style intervention poltics all over the world, but on the other hand, those also don't appear to be working very well.
Well maybe we'll leave to you guys as well. EU is by no means past their colonialism as we saw with France vis a vis Libya. This is about the only bright spot with Trump as he is far less hawkish and is more $$$ when it comes to FP. I'm not particularly fond of him, but his best point by far in his speech for me was the bit about eschewing aggressive FP and opening up relations to any country who wants to do likewise with us. We'll see if that is actually true or not and it would mean fighting the Neo-Con wing of the party which I absolutely loathe with a passion, but man that'd be great. Then again, my trust meter on that issue is more like 40/60 given the Ghouliani and Christie love affair he had last night :>
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
this is the problem of the real possibility of corporate fascism. corporations are mostly indifferent to moral values, but would fight very hard vs perceived harsh threat. harshness of thr new left would invite more of the actual fascist types.
but this is a fight that is probably necessary, just not one that the left is likely to win anytime soon.
|
On November 09 2016 21:29 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:08 Penev wrote:On November 09 2016 20:53 pmh wrote:On November 09 2016 14:16 zeo wrote:
What a huge fuck you to the mainstream media. Feels so good. ya this so much the brexit mentality I honestly have no clue what you mean with this. But when the media try to influence the people in a specific direction every single day one after another, then that does bother me as it does take away the power from the people and undermines the democratic process as a whole. But then when it appears that the people are able to see through this massive manipulation and don't give a shit about it (a manipulation many people here apearently support or at least don't care about) then ya it does feel good, ha ha.
What are you talking about, the people didn't see through the massive manipulation, the media pumped the shit out of the Clinton email scandal and the Trump fuck-ups and both side ate it up . If the media wanted to influence the election they would have focused on the issues and downplayed Clinton's scandals, but they are whores for rating who don't care about the fallouts. This is not a huge fuck you to the mainstream media, at best it's a wake-up call that they can't just polarize everything for ratings while hoping the people will do the right thing anyway.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 09 2016 21:27 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:06 oneofthem wrote:
it was there, just not quantified. he captivated the popular imagination.
problem is running against 'the people' isnt likely to win, even if it is the right thing to do
whatever trump does wont help rural america, but at least they can die happy I agree entirely with this statement : Trump is the opium of the masses. But still, it worked because the left totally converted itself to economic liberalism and lost what once was its stronghold.
dems new base is urban professionals. new economy vs phantom of old.
|
On November 09 2016 21:42 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 20:46 Introvert wrote:
Don't know why I'm still up, but she does, in the end, win the popular vote. You Democrats have got to stop packing yourselves into these states! Spread out, the rest of America isn't so bad! How about switching from a state by state system with presidential electors to a nation-wide system where the popularity actually decides the outcome? It's one of the issues and reasons I have a hard time calling the system in the US democratic. I mean, how is it "the will of the people" if the majority votes for one candidate but the other one can still win? Doesn't really make sense to me.
It's because you don't understand US history and as you said we aren't a Democracy. It's understood that each US State was an independent country prior to establishing the union (and it's pretty much enshrined in our founding documents and annexing documents of states like Texas). There would have been no US without the electoral system since it would have made no sense for the less populous COUNTRIES to agree to confederate with the other countries (read states) once we won our Revolution. That would have defeated the entire purpose of the Revolution in the first place.
|
On November 09 2016 21:43 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:36 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2016 21:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:14 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 21:01 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure people are overreacting to this. It's certainly worrisome in some concrete ways but the man isn't going to destroy the world in 4 years. Presidents aren't omnipotent, especially ones like Trump who will even have members of his own party giving him endless shit.
Not to mention Donald is such a wildcard who in the flying fuck knows what he will really do when he actually has power. I'm pretty sure he knew most if not all of his grand ideas were impossible. He just knew he could strike a cord with the dullard masses and become President saying it... I think it is a good opportunity to purposely leverage peoples fear of Trump to make them realize that Europe doesn't need to be Americas lapdog. Look at what America did people. If we start falling apart as a continent now and don't instead unite in the face of this potential source of fascism, we will succumb to it as well -- if not by voting for it ourselves like idiots, then by the nuclear bombs from them or the current or next lunatic that runs Russia. Or maybe it will be terrorism, or global warming that gets us. In none of these cases can we rely on the Americans to lead us to a world of sensibility, we are going to have to do it ourselves. It's time to organize and unite Europe. Here's to the rest of our lives. That would be great. NATO has ceased to fill any function except as a welfare security check to European countries since the collapse of the USSR. I wonder how you guys are going to pay for your lavish welfare states on top of increased military spending once NATO vanishes? As long as the EU sticks together, we already have a military large enough to deal with any threat (except the US). Since the main threat to NATO is basically russia, the fact remains that the EU budget dwarfs russias due to the simple fact that the EU economy dwarfs the russian economy. We do not have the necessary security funds to fund american-style intervention poltics all over the world, but on the other hand, those also don't appear to be working very well. Well maybe we'll leave to you guys as well. EU is by no means past their colonialism as we saw with France vis a vis Libya. This is about the only bright spot with Trump as he is far less hawkish and is more $$$ when it comes to FP. I'm not particularly fond of him, but his best point by far in his speech for me was the bit about eschewing aggressive FP and opening up relations to any country who wants to do likewise with us. We'll see if that is actually true or not and it would mean fighting the Neo-Con wing of the party which I absolutely loathe with a passion, but man that'd be great. Then again, my trust meter on that issue is more like 40/60 given the Ghouliani and Christie love affair he had last night :>
He also said he would bomb muslim countries and kill civilians. Seems quite hawkish to me? He is probably just flip-flopping like always, though, because he doesn't know what he is doing and what he has said in the past.
|
This article pretty much sums up my perspective on the situation:
What we need to focus on now is the obvious question: what the hell went wrong? What species of cluelessness guided our Democratic leaders as they went about losing what they told us was the most important election of our lifetimes?
Start at the top. Why, oh why, did it have to be Hillary Clinton? Yes, she has an impressive resume; yes, she worked hard on the campaign trail. But she was exactly the wrong candidate for this angry, populist moment. An insider when the country was screaming for an outsider. A technocrat who offered fine-tuning when the country wanted to take a sledgehammer to the machine.
She was the Democratic candidate because it was her turn and because a Clinton victory would have moved every Democrat in Washington up a notch. Whether or not she would win was always a secondary matter, something that was taken for granted. Had winning been the party’s number one concern, several more suitable candidates were ready to go. There was Joe Biden, with his powerful plainspoken style, and there was Bernie Sanders, an inspiring and largely scandal-free figure. Each of them would probably have beaten Trump, but neither of them would really have served the interests of the party insiders.
The Guardian
|
Lena Dunham, Barbara Streisand, Rosie O’Donnell, Cher, Eddie Griffin, Samuel L. Jackson, John Stewart, Omari Hardwick, Whoopie Goldburg, Al Sharpton, Raven-Symone, Jennifer Lawrence, Barry, Diller, Miley Cyrus, George Lopez, Chelsea Handler, Jenny Slate, Neve Campbell, Zosia Mamet, Chloe Sevigny, Natasha Lyonne, Elisabeth Moss, Spike Lee, Kathryn Hahn, Lily Depp, Gabrielle Union, Matt Damon, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Amy Schumer, Will.I.Am, Bryan Cranston, Lena Dunham, Amy Schumer, Keegan Michael-Key, Ne-Yo
These celebrities said they would move in case of Trump's victory. Let's check on them in few months 
|
On November 09 2016 21:46 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:42 Miragee wrote:On November 09 2016 20:46 Introvert wrote:
Don't know why I'm still up, but she does, in the end, win the popular vote. You Democrats have got to stop packing yourselves into these states! Spread out, the rest of America isn't so bad! How about switching from a state by state system with presidential electors to a nation-wide system where the popularity actually decides the outcome? It's one of the issues and reasons I have a hard time calling the system in the US democratic. I mean, how is it "the will of the people" if the majority votes for one candidate but the other one can still win? Doesn't really make sense to me. It's because you don't understand US history and as you said we aren't a Democracy. It's understood that each US State was an independent country prior to establishing the union (and it's pretty much enshrined in our founding documents and annexing documents of states like Texas). There would have been no US without the electoral system since it would have made no sense for the less populous COUNTRIES to agree to confederate with the other countries (read states) once we won our Revolution. That would have defeated the entire purpose of the Revolution in the first place.
I understand your point but don't you think it's time to move away from that and onto a more modern system?
|
On November 09 2016 21:47 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:43 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:36 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2016 21:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:14 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 21:01 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure people are overreacting to this. It's certainly worrisome in some concrete ways but the man isn't going to destroy the world in 4 years. Presidents aren't omnipotent, especially ones like Trump who will even have members of his own party giving him endless shit.
Not to mention Donald is such a wildcard who in the flying fuck knows what he will really do when he actually has power. I'm pretty sure he knew most if not all of his grand ideas were impossible. He just knew he could strike a cord with the dullard masses and become President saying it... I think it is a good opportunity to purposely leverage peoples fear of Trump to make them realize that Europe doesn't need to be Americas lapdog. Look at what America did people. If we start falling apart as a continent now and don't instead unite in the face of this potential source of fascism, we will succumb to it as well -- if not by voting for it ourselves like idiots, then by the nuclear bombs from them or the current or next lunatic that runs Russia. Or maybe it will be terrorism, or global warming that gets us. In none of these cases can we rely on the Americans to lead us to a world of sensibility, we are going to have to do it ourselves. It's time to organize and unite Europe. Here's to the rest of our lives. That would be great. NATO has ceased to fill any function except as a welfare security check to European countries since the collapse of the USSR. I wonder how you guys are going to pay for your lavish welfare states on top of increased military spending once NATO vanishes? As long as the EU sticks together, we already have a military large enough to deal with any threat (except the US). Since the main threat to NATO is basically russia, the fact remains that the EU budget dwarfs russias due to the simple fact that the EU economy dwarfs the russian economy. We do not have the necessary security funds to fund american-style intervention poltics all over the world, but on the other hand, those also don't appear to be working very well. Well maybe we'll leave to you guys as well. EU is by no means past their colonialism as we saw with France vis a vis Libya. This is about the only bright spot with Trump as he is far less hawkish and is more $$$ when it comes to FP. I'm not particularly fond of him, but his best point by far in his speech for me was the bit about eschewing aggressive FP and opening up relations to any country who wants to do likewise with us. We'll see if that is actually true or not and it would mean fighting the Neo-Con wing of the party which I absolutely loathe with a passion, but man that'd be great. Then again, my trust meter on that issue is more like 40/60 given the Ghouliani and Christie love affair he had last night :> He also said he would bomb muslim countries and kill civilians. Seems quite hawkish to me? He is probably just flip-flopping like always, though, because he doesn't know what he is doing and what he has said in the past.
Well Trump was against Libya, Iraq War, etc. He's way less hawkish than Hillary Clinton. Yes, he's not perfect and I'd much rather have Rand Paul, but he's not Barry Goldwater reincarnate lol.
|
On November 09 2016 21:33 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:14 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 21:01 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure people are overreacting to this. It's certainly worrisome in some concrete ways but the man isn't going to destroy the world in 4 years. Presidents aren't omnipotent, especially ones like Trump who will even have members of his own party giving him endless shit.
Not to mention Donald is such a wildcard who in the flying fuck knows what he will really do when he actually has power. I'm pretty sure he knew most if not all of his grand ideas were impossible. He just knew he could strike a cord with the dullard masses and become President saying it... I think it is a good opportunity to purposely leverage peoples fear of Trump to make them realize that Europe doesn't need to be Americas lapdog. Look at what America did people. If we start falling apart as a continent now and don't instead unite in the face of this potential source of fascism, we will succumb to it as well -- if not by voting for it ourselves like idiots, then by the nuclear bombs from them or the current or next lunatic that runs Russia. Or maybe it will be terrorism, or global warming that gets us. In none of these cases can we rely on the Americans to lead us to a world of sensibility, we are going to have to do it ourselves. It's time to organize and unite Europe. Here's to the rest of our lives. That would be great. NATO has ceased to fill any function except as a welfare security check to European countries since the collapse of the USSR. I wonder how you guys are going to pay for your lavish welfare states on top of increased military spending once NATO vanishes?
I dunno, I guess I just I imagine we will work up an unbelievably ridiculously out of proportion-sized debt.
Obviously we will have a to strike a balance. Just like you guys.
|
On November 09 2016 21:50 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:46 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:42 Miragee wrote:On November 09 2016 20:46 Introvert wrote:
Don't know why I'm still up, but she does, in the end, win the popular vote. You Democrats have got to stop packing yourselves into these states! Spread out, the rest of America isn't so bad! How about switching from a state by state system with presidential electors to a nation-wide system where the popularity actually decides the outcome? It's one of the issues and reasons I have a hard time calling the system in the US democratic. I mean, how is it "the will of the people" if the majority votes for one candidate but the other one can still win? Doesn't really make sense to me. It's because you don't understand US history and as you said we aren't a Democracy. It's understood that each US State was an independent country prior to establishing the union (and it's pretty much enshrined in our founding documents and annexing documents of states like Texas). There would have been no US without the electoral system since it would have made no sense for the less populous COUNTRIES to agree to confederate with the other countries (read states) once we won our Revolution. That would have defeated the entire purpose of the Revolution in the first place. I understand your point but don't you think it's time to move away from that and onto a more modern system?
No. (Unless by modern you mean abolishing the State and moving to anarcho-capitalism..., but I doubt it sooo again No)
|
|
|
On November 09 2016 21:47 Miragee wrote:Show nested quote +On November 09 2016 21:43 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:36 Simberto wrote:On November 09 2016 21:33 Wegandi wrote:On November 09 2016 21:14 a_flayer wrote:On November 09 2016 21:01 DannyJ wrote:
Pretty sure people are overreacting to this. It's certainly worrisome in some concrete ways but the man isn't going to destroy the world in 4 years. Presidents aren't omnipotent, especially ones like Trump who will even have members of his own party giving him endless shit.
Not to mention Donald is such a wildcard who in the flying fuck knows what he will really do when he actually has power. I'm pretty sure he knew most if not all of his grand ideas were impossible. He just knew he could strike a cord with the dullard masses and become President saying it... I think it is a good opportunity to purposely leverage peoples fear of Trump to make them realize that Europe doesn't need to be Americas lapdog. Look at what America did people. If we start falling apart as a continent now and don't instead unite in the face of this potential source of fascism, we will succumb to it as well -- if not by voting for it ourselves like idiots, then by the nuclear bombs from them or the current or next lunatic that runs Russia. Or maybe it will be terrorism, or global warming that gets us. In none of these cases can we rely on the Americans to lead us to a world of sensibility, we are going to have to do it ourselves. It's time to organize and unite Europe. Here's to the rest of our lives. That would be great. NATO has ceased to fill any function except as a welfare security check to European countries since the collapse of the USSR. I wonder how you guys are going to pay for your lavish welfare states on top of increased military spending once NATO vanishes? As long as the EU sticks together, we already have a military large enough to deal with any threat (except the US). Since the main threat to NATO is basically russia, the fact remains that the EU budget dwarfs russias due to the simple fact that the EU economy dwarfs the russian economy. We do not have the necessary security funds to fund american-style intervention poltics all over the world, but on the other hand, those also don't appear to be working very well. Well maybe we'll leave to you guys as well. EU is by no means past their colonialism as we saw with France vis a vis Libya. This is about the only bright spot with Trump as he is far less hawkish and is more $$$ when it comes to FP. I'm not particularly fond of him, but his best point by far in his speech for me was the bit about eschewing aggressive FP and opening up relations to any country who wants to do likewise with us. We'll see if that is actually true or not and it would mean fighting the Neo-Con wing of the party which I absolutely loathe with a passion, but man that'd be great. Then again, my trust meter on that issue is more like 40/60 given the Ghouliani and Christie love affair he had last night :> He also said he would bomb muslim countries and kill civilians. Seems quite hawkish to me? He is probably just flip-flopping like always, though, because he doesn't know what he is doing and what he has said in the past.
He's a populist (duh)
Problematic is in other democracies they have to found their own party and have to be part of a coalition if they want to have direct influence. In the States one of the worst populist I have ever witnessed in any western country at least, got immediate access to close to half the electorate and he and the party he represents have a majority in every department now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
