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 10:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Trump knows Climate Change exist but the rubes that voted for him don't whether it be greed or simple religious belief that they are the center of the Universe and if the world ends it's "God's will". Trump just wants power.
I think by now I'm long past the idea that Trump "can't possibly be that stupid" when evaluating the comments he makes.
The interesting thing will be the actual actions taken. They will prove whether he talks without thinking first or if he means what he says.
I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if he just signs off on whatever the Republican Congress wants to pass, thus not forcing him to actively make any real decisions. Just going with the flow of his party, really.
On November 10 2016 10:44 RealityIsKing wrote: But I'm REALLY optimistic though.
Funny, so are extremist terrorists!
"Rejoice with support from Allah, and find glad tidings in the imminent demise of America at the hands of Trump,” said the Islamic State-affiliated al-Minbar Jihadi Media network, one of several jihadi forums to post commentaries on the results of the U.S. election.
"Trump’s win of the American presidency will bring hostility of Muslims against America as a result of his reckless actions, which show the overt and hidden hatred against them,” continued the essay, provided by the SITE Intelligence group, a private organization that monitors jihadists’ web sites.
Al-Minbar is among several jihadist-lined online publications that sought to capitalize on Trump’s controversial statements about Muslim during the election campaign, saying that the alienation of ordinary Muslims is key to their recruitment of foreign fighters. Dabiq, the Islamic State’s English-language magazine, said its terrorist campaign in Europe was intended to spark an anti-Muslim backlash by Western governments that would force European Muslims to choose sides.
A pro-a-Qaeda al-Maqalaat Twitter account predicted that Trump would “make the U.S. Enemy No. 1 again” in the Muslim Middle East.
“Trump will serve as the perfect straw man for the next four years, like Bush did before him,” it said.
Now News, a Lebanese English-language website, aggregated a series of other comments from noted Salafist ideologues.
"Trump’s victory is a powerful slap to those promoting the benefits of democratic mechanisms,” tweeted Hamza al-Karibi, a media spokesman for Syrian jihadist group Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, which was formerly affiliated with al-Qaeda before rebranding itself this year in a bid to avoid being targeted by both Russian and American airstrikes.
Abu Muhammad al-Maqdisi, a jihadist ideologue linked to al-Qaeda who has close to 60,000 followers on Twitter, gloated about Trump's victory, suggesting that it "may be the beginning of America’s fragmentation and the era of its breakup." In a second tweet, he said that Trump "reveals the true mentality of the Americans, and their racism toward Muslims and Arabs and everything. He reveals what his predecessors used to conceal. So his victory further exposes America and its appendages.”
On November 10 2016 10:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Trump knows Climate Change exist but the rubes that voted for him don't whether it be greed or simple religious belief that they are the center of the Universe and if the world ends it's "God's will". Trump just wants power.
I think by now I'm long past the idea that Trump "can't possibly be that stupid" when evaluating the comments he makes.
The interesting thing will be the actual actions taken. They will prove whether he talks without thinking first or if he means what he says.
I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if he just signs off on whatever the Republican Congress wants to pass, thus not forcing him to actively make any real decisions. Just going with the flow of his party, really.
Sounds like an excellent President to me then. If he administers the laws and institutions put under the government well then he does the minimum of his job. Unlikely he will be a leader in a serious war as things look right now.
On November 10 2016 09:43 Doodsmack wrote: Trump wasting no time stocking his transition team with lobbyists in the employ of major corps...but his low info dummies aren't aware of course.
You are still thinking in black and white term "class" oriented concepts.
Stop that.
It is 100% possible for the employers and employees collaborating together.
The reason why people are disgruntled is because of lack of jobs.
And you can't coordinate a plan to increase jobs without the "major corps".
Obviously American democracy wants to see this strategy of decreasing taxes for the employers so that they are able to expand their industries and thus create jobs.
And obviously Obama's administration didn't exactly help with the job creation department, which is why the DNC lost.
Please tell me how the mighty Trump will undo globalization?
He cannot bring back the jobs because no one in the US is willing to work for the wages required for that
He is not going to undo globalization.
He have never said that.
So stop spreading that.
He said that he will negotiate better deals.
He even said that he will keep on trading.
With DNC more in power, you will simply hemorrhage jobs out of the country.
At least Trump recognize this problem, which the DNC doesn't even acknowledges that. So he will think about a plan to fix that.
Whether or not Trump will succeed, nobody knows.
But at least be like President Obama to have an open mind on this.
Be open minded, be a classical liberal.
this is an amazing, poetic post, framed poster worthy even.
the trump described here would most definitely not vote for the trump of the elections.
There's a protest outside Trump tower, it seems they're having trouble accepting the outcome of a democratic election.
There is quite a bit going on in California as well. This election has been very polarizing to say the least. I imagine many of the "liberal elite" feel like a trump presidency is a challenge to their values.
The "liberal elite" are cowering in their houses; the folks on the streets are those most likely to feel the brunt of the policies Trump is likely to enact.
On November 10 2016 10:53 farvacola wrote: The "liberal elite" are cowering in their houses; the folks on the streets are those most likely to feel the brunt of the policies Trump is likely to enact.
I know there was a Latino rally in Cali where some of them were worried that while they were here legally, their parents are not, and they fear their family will end up deported. Others are simply upset over Trump's character and rhetoric, protesting against sexism, racism, etc.
On November 10 2016 10:53 farvacola wrote: The "liberal elite" are cowering in their houses; the folks on the streets are those most likely to feel the brunt of the policies Trump is likely to enact.
I know there was a Latino rally in Cali where some of them were worried that while they were here legally, their parents are not, and they fear their family will end up deported. Others are simply upset over Trump's character and rhetoric, protesting against sexism, racism, etc.
You forgot about the millions of people who are going to lose their health insurance.
On November 10 2016 10:23 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Trump knows Climate Change exist but the rubes that voted for him don't whether it be greed or simple religious belief that they are the center of the Universe and if the world ends it's "God's will". Trump just wants power.
I think by now I'm long past the idea that Trump "can't possibly be that stupid" when evaluating the comments he makes.
The interesting thing will be the actual actions taken. They will prove whether he talks without thinking first or if he means what he says.
I agree. I wouldn't be surprised if he just signs off on whatever the Republican Congress wants to pass, thus not forcing him to actively make any real decisions. Just going with the flow of his party, really.
Sounds like an excellent President to me then. If he administers the laws and institutions put under the government well then he does the minimum of his job. Unlikely he will be a leader in a serious war as things look right now.
I mean, the executive branch still has veto power, which should be something the president is willing to use if Congress is being crazy. I'm also not sure how his tactless demeanor will go over with foreign leaders... he has no idea how to be diplomatic.
There's a protest outside Trump tower, it seems they're having trouble accepting the outcome of a democratic election.
There is quite a bit going on in California as well. This election has been very polarizing to say the least. I imagine many of the "liberal elite" feel like a trump presidency is a challenge to their values.
Certainly more peaceful than if Clinton had won, and all those Trump supporters who were organizing militia and practicing on targets "in case Clinton won".
Yeah it's that people were fearful of the ideas he brought along. There's been lots of really crazy chants that were partially covered by news networks, apparently you heard stuff like "jew-s-a", "build a wall, kill them all", "trump that bitch", "go back to where you came from". Like just generally shitty stuff, a lot of my Facebook friends have expressed fear and even on Twitter my minority friends feel unsafe wearing a hijab. Trump isn't directly responsible for it, but he brought it out and never managed to extinguish it. The idea that an electoral majority of the country agreed with their vote that this rhetoric was acceptable (obviously among other things) freaks them out. One of the women on 538 said she did a lot of interviewing in more rural red America and said she wouldn't feel comfortable living there. Yeah, I know, anecdotal, but we have a lot of ground to cover to fix these issues.
Anyways, I'm also reading climate skeptic arguments and man there's so much pseudoscience, but also many well-presented arguments against. It's a pain to actually read and decipher and corroborate articles and opinions and I can understand how even reasonable people can become skeptical.
On November 10 2016 10:18 TheNewEra wrote: Currently at work. Can anybody tell me how the Recreational and Medical Cannabis proposals went?
I'm pretty sure the marijuana proposals were (all?) successful, although who knows what a conservative government will do.
It's a bit awkward for them I think. They can't really put the kibosh on State legalization cuz it kills their State's Rights argument.
That's a good point. What do Republicans gain from keeping marijuana illegal anyway?
Um, do you even realize that in most states that have legalized medical marijuana or recreational that a big push for it has been by Republicans? I agree nationally they're not as good, but generally state republicans are quite good on the issue. (For one example the Democrats have been the roadblock to legalization in NH, not Republicans)
I noticed Trudeau being extremely careful this campaign with how he talked about the American election. He would only condemn stuff that was obviously bad, and never against Trump directly. I'm glad he's aware of the negotiating table. I'm thankful for Canadian elections really, Harper wasn't fun but he knew how to do things. Also happy our "change" candidate was kinda Trudeau. They're talking about bringing Trump's ideas over though, I'm not sure how well that'll go over here.
Any of the foreign leaders who openly played favorites in the election are fools. Their choice may be obvious but their official position better be "it's for the American people to decide and we will work with whoever they select."
I don't recall if any European leaders played obvious favorites here, though I'll give Obama in the UK as an example of how you can really make a fool of yourself (e.g. "back of the queue" threats about Brexit) by openly playing favorites with other people's elections.
There is a belief out there that protests like these help Trump's turnout or his message. I'm not convinced I agree, but it must be noted that it doesn't appear to help Democrat turnout in any way.
People thought there might be violence if Trump won. Again, I'd say recent history leads one to conclude that Trump's victory is more likely to cause riots and the like. It's the left that does this.
On November 10 2016 10:18 TheNewEra wrote: Currently at work. Can anybody tell me how the Recreational and Medical Cannabis proposals went?
I'm pretty sure the marijuana proposals were (all?) successful, although who knows what a conservative government will do.
It's a bit awkward for them I think. They can't really put the kibosh on State legalization cuz it kills their State's Rights argument.
That's a good point. What do Republicans gain from keeping marijuana illegal anyway?
Um, do you even realize that in most states that have legalized medical marijuana or recreational that a big push for it has been by Republicans? I agree nationally they're not as good, but generally state republicans are quite good on the issue. (For one example the Democrats have been the roadblock to legalization in NH, not Republicans)
In general, that's simply not the case. Christie in NJ was a huge opponent of pot, and it's an issue for many Republican leaders: "Opposition to marijuana use plays well with conservatives, which is the core voter base in the primary. Yet that stance is not popular with the larger electorate." (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/la-na-marijuana-republicans-20150509-story.html)
"Republicans snub marijuana legalization at convention ... Unlike the Libertarian Party and Democratic Party, the GOP has traditionally shied away from marijuana reform — probably a result of its lingering War on Drugs campaign." ~http://hightimes.com/news/politics/recap-republicans-snub-marijuana-legalization-at-convention/
Fortunately, "Trump, who advocated the legalization of drugs in the early 1990s, has since changed his stance, saying he now favors marijuana use for medical purposes, as opposed to full legalization, and that individual states should make the decisions for themselves." ~http://www.ibtimes.com/marijuana-legalization-2016-where-do-donald-trump-other-republicans-stand-cannabis-2306232
So Trump's perspective on marijuana at least isn't 100% bad.
On November 10 2016 11:30 LegalLord wrote: Any of the foreign leaders who openly played favorites in the election are fools. Their choice may be obvious but their official position better be "it's for the American people to decide and we will work with whoever they select."
I don't recall if any European leaders played obvious favorites here, though I'll give Obama in the UK as an example of how you can really make a fool of yourself (e.g. "back of the queue" threats about Brexit) by openly playing favorites with other people's elections.
Our foreign minister had some clear words earlier this year, (http://www.dw.com/en/german-foreign-minister-steinmeier-warns-of-hate-preacher-trump/a-19450082) and in contrast to Merkel he didn't even congratulate today. He seems pretty pissed. Merkel also took the opportunity to remember Trump of our shared values and human rights which she usually does when she addresses the Chinese leadership, which was somewhat sad and hilarious.
On November 10 2016 11:34 Introvert wrote: There is a belief out there that protests like these help Trump's turnout or his message. I'm not convinced I agree, but it must be noted that it doesn't appear to help Democrat turnout in any way.
People thought there might be violence if Trump won. Again, I'd say recent history leads one to conclude that Trump's victory is more likely to cause riots and the like. It's the left that does this.
But I wish I knew the effect is has.
This is why media networks should be building trust in their audiences, not alienating them. This is a great opportunity to do thorough analysis, talk reasonably about issues, about turnout, explain polling, and give fair, compassionate, relatable opinions about what happens next, and what people can do to be useful. Talk about rioting and what it accomplishes and what message is sent, about civic rights and about democratic rights and processes. Like, good post-mortems. Real journalism. There's all kinds of directions you can take this. Give useful context to stuff that's happening in your own backyard.
There was a time where Americans would always tune into their 7-10pm TVs and watch the news and evening programmes as a family. I'm sure the trust in media was higher back then. The world is different now and I'm not sure what the quality of the content then was like, but still.
Basically just not this partisan bashing and hate smearing and lying to your viewers and condescendingly withhold information from them. I blame a shift to ads-based online media which encourages low content clickbait and partisan demographic retention in order to get more consistent clickthrough numbers for ad revenue for the lower quality of journalism in these news outlets. I'm looking forward to 538's postmortems because their election postmortem sounded human.
EPT
