|
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 10 2016 03:42 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 03:23 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:20 TheYango wrote:On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote:On November 10 2016 02:44 Jormundr wrote:Also this is probably the most realistic explanation of this election I've seen so far. Point #3 hits very close to home. extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it. So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent? Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift. I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses). I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony. He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else. Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills. You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G? I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory.
Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems.
I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses.
|
On November 10 2016 03:23 oneofthem wrote:
that she didn't talk about climate change was her recognizing the importance of the rust belt vote. it just wasn't enough.
the regular army (media) got surrounded by the guerrillas (internet), and the regular army was in a bubble all this time.
I find it unsettling that a presidential candidate has to choose between an honest discussion about one of the most important global issues we're facing right now, and appeasing enough voters to get elected.
Under a Trump administration, especially with a Republican-controlled Congress, the climate change conversation will all but end. The only thing related to climate change that I'd expect Trump to do is try to impose a tax on China for fabricating the whole thing.
|
The Trump administration has a very real chance of becoming a who's who of "establishment Republicans I can't stand".
So much for being the anti-establishment candidate. I don't know how anyone who voted for him as a break from establishment politics can be happy with half these names.
|
On November 10 2016 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:39 dAPhREAk wrote:
not going to read 750 posts, but market has already recovered. not even sure i can tax loss harvest, or whether its worth it to buy stock outside my normal cycle. where are the doom and gloom idiots now? If I understand most of the "doom and gloom" arguments correctly, they're mostly about the digression from social and economic progress once Trump actually becomes president (in January) and once all three branches of government are Republican-controlled. As in, the doom and gloom predictions aren't relevant yet.
im referring to the people talking about the small dip in the stock market and how people should sell their stock "before its too late."
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
hillary and her campaign has their problems, but the fact is her perception by the public was extremely off from reality. this is not even counting the "lock her up" folks.
|
On November 10 2016 03:48 pmh wrote:
I don't see the point in putting the result of this election on just rural America alone. Rural America is a minority,the majority lives in the cities yet was unable to give Clinton the majority. There are more problems then just rural America that led to the result of this election. The middle class in the cities is getting hammerd just as hard,living cost going through the roof while wages not rising. People have to work 2 jobs and 60 hours a week just to rent a very small apartment and pay of the credit card debt and untilities.
I read an article somewhere that turnout was following an inverse power law as a function of your city's size - roughly speaking, the formalized idea that the smaller a place you live in, the more likely you are to vote, because you feel your vote is not going to be diluted as much. I'll try to find the article when I get a sec.
If that's the case, in a neck and neck competition with around 60% overall turnout, that phenomenon alone would give +3%/+5% to the candidate of small constituencies. I haven't seen any models really accounting for it, I think Nate Silver felt it intuitively and started fudging his predictions in Trump's favour in order to account for it.
|
I don't see the point in putting the result of this election on just rural America alone. Rural America is a minority,the majority lives in the cities yet was unable to give Clinton the majority. There are more problems then just rural America that led to the result of this election. The middle class in the cities is getting hammerd just as hard,living cost going through the roof while wages not rising. People have to work 60 hours a week just to rent a very small apartment and pay of the credit card debt.
True. But just look at the map. Trump basically won in every rural county there is. Even in most of the blue states.
|
On November 10 2016 03:53 TheYango wrote:
The Trump administration has a very real chance of becoming a who's who of "establishment Republicans I can't stand".
So much for being the anti-establishment candidate. I don't know how anyone who voted for him as a break from establishment politics can be happy with half these names.
get set for the 21st century version of Reagan-omics 
|
On November 10 2016 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2016 03:39 dAPhREAk wrote:
not going to read 750 posts, but market has already recovered. not even sure i can tax loss harvest, or whether its worth it to buy stock outside my normal cycle. where are the doom and gloom idiots now? If I understand most of the "doom and gloom" arguments correctly, they're mostly about the digression from social and economic progress once Trump actually becomes president (in January) and once all three branches of government are Republican-controlled. As in, the doom and gloom predictions aren't relevant yet. im referring to the people talking about the small dip in the stock market and how people should sell their stock "before its too late."
The market was limit down and experienced a +6.5% face ripper of a retracement, initially on the back of long gamma players. It's not like it didn't treat the election as a nuclear catastrophe originally. Last time I remember the SPX doing that were the credit downgrade and the voting of TARP during Lehman
|
On November 10 2016 03:48 pmh wrote:
I don't see the point in putting the result of this election on just rural America alone. Rural America is a minority,the majority lives in the cities yet was unable to give Clinton the majority. There are more problems then just rural America that led to the result of this election. The middle class in the cities is getting hammerd just as hard,living cost going through the roof while wages not rising. People have to work 2 jobs and 60 hours a week just to rent a very small apartment and pay of the credit card debt and untilities.
the main reason for the result of this election I think is the growing inequality. It has been growing since the late 70,s early 80,s past century and it now is at pre world war 2 levels again. The inequality got to big,the middle class and lower ended up with a to small slice of the pie. That is the core of the whole problem and that should be addressed. Lifting up a small part of the group who has been left behind (rural America for example) will not solve the problem I think.
The rich, they have to become a bit less rich and powerfull. But that seems a step to far for America to make,and not only for America unfortunately.
Look at the electoral map. Even in red states, Clinton performed well among urban voters. The divide is very much urban/rural, not simply one of class. Middle class urban workers are still in general far less averse to the Democratic message than the Republican one (I would expect that if we had Bernie instead of Clinton, they would have made up the core of Bernie's voting base, but still not necessarily outweighed Trump overperforming in rural counties).
Rural America may be the minority, but due to the way the electoral system works, many states with large urban centers don't necessarily bring electoral votes proportional to their populations.
|
On November 10 2016 03:54 virpi wrote:Show nested quote +I don't see the point in putting the result of this election on just rural America alone. Rural America is a minority,the majority lives in the cities yet was unable to give Clinton the majority. There are more problems then just rural America that led to the result of this election. The middle class in the cities is getting hammerd just as hard,living cost going through the roof while wages not rising. People have to work 60 hours a week just to rent a very small apartment and pay of the credit card debt. True. But just look at the map. Trump basically won in every rural county there is. Even in most of the blue states.
Unionized workers are who made Democrats successful, not progressives. The Democratic establishment let themselves forget that.
As, I think xdaunt put it: Whitey's revenge.
|
On November 10 2016 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:39 dAPhREAk wrote:
not going to read 750 posts, but market has already recovered. not even sure i can tax loss harvest, or whether its worth it to buy stock outside my normal cycle. where are the doom and gloom idiots now? If I understand most of the "doom and gloom" arguments correctly, they're mostly about the digression from social and economic progress once Trump actually becomes president (in January) and once all three branches of government are Republican-controlled. As in, the doom and gloom predictions aren't relevant yet.
I think the scarier question to ask is this: what happens if Trump fails the people who just elected him?
|
United States15275 Posts
On November 10 2016 03:48 Half the Sky wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:
He wasn't part of the "establishment" in Washington, and so passed off his wealth as proof he wouldn't be paid off or influenced by lobbyists in Washington. Rural America doesn't hate the rich, more the social and cultural associations with having money + urban attitudes. If any of the following is true, then this shortlist shows they have been completely duped.
Remember that "urban attitudes" has a very specific meaning to that demographic. They inevitably associate it with being liberal and/or dismissive of those who live in the country, intellectual in a highfalutin way (and we could write books just on the topic on the history of anti-intellectualism in this country), and disassociated from traditional values. It's about presentation more than anything else.
On November 10 2016 03:48 Tachion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:40 CosmicSpiral wrote:On November 10 2016 03:35 Acrofales wrote:
It's still ironic that their hero was a smug cosmopolitan new yorker. Smug but never cosmopolitan. For decades, he was regularly mocked and belittled by the cultural elite for his lack of class and brazen egotism. Even during his initial forays into politics he was treated as a joke. I really don't expect this to change. He is going to be under sooo much scrutiny and criticism for the next few years. A clown sitting in the oval office is still a clown.
A clown is still a clown, but honestly Pence scares me more than Trump.
|
On November 10 2016 03:53 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2016 03:39 dAPhREAk wrote:
not going to read 750 posts, but market has already recovered. not even sure i can tax loss harvest, or whether its worth it to buy stock outside my normal cycle. where are the doom and gloom idiots now? If I understand most of the "doom and gloom" arguments correctly, they're mostly about the digression from social and economic progress once Trump actually becomes president (in January) and once all three branches of government are Republican-controlled. As in, the doom and gloom predictions aren't relevant yet. im referring to the people talking about the small dip in the stock market and how people should sell their stock "before its too late."
Ah okay. Yeah, a few hours/ days of volatility due to a presidential election isn't super surprising.
|
On November 10 2016 03:53 TheYango wrote:
The Trump administration has a very real chance of becoming a who's who of "establishment Republicans I can't stand".
So much for being the anti-establishment candidate. I don't know how anyone who voted for him as a break from establishment politics can be happy with half these names.
He talked like one for a while, but most conservatives recognized him as an establishment candidate slightly more palatable than Jeb or Kasich. Those are two names I'd reject for Trump in a primary.
He's got Pence, Sessions, and hopefully the people that told him to pick Pence in the administration. Thats the slim hope for the future.
|
The Front National, French far right, got representatives invited at Trump's place during the election's day.
|
On November 10 2016 03:48 Half the Sky wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:
He wasn't part of the "establishment" in Washington, and so passed off his wealth as proof he wouldn't be paid off or influenced by lobbyists in Washington. Rural America doesn't hate the rich, more the social and cultural associations with having money + urban attitudes. If any of the following is true, then this shortlist shows they have been completely duped. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-trump-cabinet-231071Names as mentioned on the shortlist: Newt Gingrich (possibly Sec State) Rudy Giuliani (AG???) Chris Christie (isn't this guy under investigation????) like those three alone shoots the anti-establishment thing out of the water. Sessions/Talent for DoD Sarah Palin for Interior (!!!) Show nested quote +Other possible candidates include former Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer; Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin; Wyoming Rep. Cynthia Lummis; and Oklahoma oilman Harold Hamm. More... Show nested quote +Agriculture secretary
There are several names being considered by Trump aides for agriculture secretary, according to multiple sources familiar with the transition. The president-elect has a deep bench to pull from, with nearly 70 leaders on his agricultural advisory committee.
The most controversial name on the transition’s current short list is Sid Miller, the current secretary of agriculture in Texas, who caused a firestorm just days ago after his campaign’s Twitter account referred to Hillary Clinton as a "c---." Miller said it was a staffer mistake and apologized.
Other names include Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback; Nebraska Gov. Dave Heineman; former Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue; and former Texas Gov. Rick Perry; as well as Charles Herbster, Republican donor and agribusiness leader; and Mike McCloskey, a major dairy executive in Indiana, according to Arabella Advisors, a firm that advises top foundations and closely tracked both transition efforts.
Bruce Rastetter, a major Republican donor in Iowa, and Kip Tom, a farmer who ran for Congress in Indiana this year but was defeated in the primary, are also among those being considered, Arabella said.
Other top Republican insiders expect that Chuck Connor, president and CEO of the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives; Don Villwock, president of the Indiana Farm Bureau; and Ted McKinney, current director of the Indiana Department of Agriculture in administration of Gov. Mike Pence, are also likely to be in the running for the post. Trump also looks to be scrapping Education and EPA but it may not happen right away. Other departments to be stocked with private sector folks. Goldman Sachs guy for Treasury. Assuming a sizeable amount of this info is true, unless someone knows something about any of these people in terms of pro-manufacturing or pro small business (???????) I think people are going to learn the hard way re: populism tactics. Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:48 pmh wrote:
I don't see the point in putting the result of this election on just rural America. Rural America is a minority,the majority lives in the cities yet was unable to give Clinton the majority. There are more problems then just rural America that led to the result of this election. In a twist of irony, it also appears the final counts are done and HRC has won the popular vote by 135k, but I won't detail the thread with Electoral College talk... SourceJust saying.
If that is truly a cabinet proposal, it is really absolutely godawful.
Foreign affairs will be run by Gingrich/Sessions. So first Gingrich will piss everybody off (particularly anybody who holds any stock in NATO or the UN, which are traditionally the US' closest allies), and then Sessions will go to war (and be woefully incompetent at it).
Palin as <anything>. Speaks for itself.
And either Christie or the dementing Giuliani as AG. /facepalm.
So much for getting the best people. Cronies and suckups more like.
|
On November 10 2016 03:57 Danglars wrote:
He's got Pence, Sessions, and hopefully the people that told him to pick Pence in the administration. Thats the slim hope for the future.
If Jeff Sessions is supposed to be my hope for the future, that's a pretty fucking grim future.
|
On November 10 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:23 oneofthem wrote:
that she didn't talk about climate change was her recognizing the importance of the rust belt vote. it just wasn't enough.
the regular army (media) got surrounded by the guerrillas (internet), and the regular army was in a bubble all this time. I find it unsettling that a presidential candidate has to choose between an honest discussion about one of the most important global issues we're facing right now, and appeasing enough voters to get elected. Under a Trump administration, especially with a Republican-controlled Congress, the climate change conversation will all but end. The only thing related to climate change that I'd expect Trump to do is try to impose a tax on China for fabricating the whole thing.
Pretty much expect a whole lot of deregulation...at the very least.
Environmental Protection Agency administrator
While Trump has called for eliminating the EPA, he has more recently modified that position, saying in September that he’ll “refocus the EPA on its core mission of ensuring clean air, and clean, safe drinking water for all Americans.”
Myron Ebell, a climate skeptic who is running the EPA working group on Trump’s transition team, is seen as a top candidate to lead the agency. Ebell, an official at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, has come under fire from environmental groups for his stances on global warming. Venture capitalist Robert Grady is also a contender.
Other potential candidates: Joe Aiello, director of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection’s Division of Environmental Safety and Quality Assurance; Carol Comer, the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management, who was appointed by Pence; and Leslie Rutledge, attorney general of Arkansas and a lead challenger of EPA regulations in the state.
Same source as link in my previous post.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
^that's fairly foreseeable.
market bounce largely sector based. a lot of industries stand to benefit under slash and burn wave against regulation. welcome to progress kids.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
