Not a single thread on the US election?

[directhex]

I see that as an opportunity to trigger a reduction in tension, rather than a new threat!

"A reduction in tension"

I'm sure everyone in the Ukraine is gonna feel all their tension eased. Well, what's left of the Ukraine.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

"A reduction in tension"

I'm sure everyone in the Ukraine is gonna feel all their tension eased. Well, what's left of the Ukraine.

But then the US should no better than to build an ABM system in Europe which gives them an enhanced first strike capability against Russia? They made the first move,despite the misgivings of Clinton's own defence secretary.

Then when they made their flimsy excuse its for Iran,the Russians offered them the use of one of their radar stations which they rebuked.

Now its not rocket science Russia now views every move Europe(let alone the US) does eastwards as a way to undermine them.

Its entirely OUR fault Putin has managed to stay so long in power by giving him a 100 excuses to spin to his own people that we are trying to screw them over.

America and us trying to rule the bloody world,meant he has been given excuses to stay in power for nearly 20 years,and he is making sure the far right get into power around the world so he can divide us further so we are not a threat to them.

What did people think an KGB person would do once we pushed too far??

The bloke is a Romulan.

For what?? So the US can have an ABM system when they have more functional warheads and missiles than Russia already.

What the heck are we doing hosting ABM systems for the US?? It makes us more of a target in any conflict between Russia and the US.

They are doing the exact same thing in China too,cause North Korea. Next #### storm is going to be there.

China has an even smaller nuclear stockpile so I expect we can see them acting more and more agressively - oh wait!

The whole thing is the US trying to undermine MAD of competitor nations by putting ABM systems around the world to give them a better first strike capability.

The US can't play a moral high ground here - people forget that the US placed Jupiter IRBMs on Turkish soil first which eventually lead to the Soviets doing the same in Cuba to make up for the perceived first strike gap.

The US then made sure Cuba was under sanctions for 50 years,which screwed its people more than Castro or any of his family.

Imagine the #### storm if China decided to put an ABM system in Mexico,etc.

After all during a BBC Hard Talk interview about a decade or so ago,I still remember a senior CIA official who retired give his "personal opinion" that South America was in the "US sphere of influence",etc.

This is why good old Pinochet managed to kill 1000s of his own people with Reagon and Thatcher having a nice special relationship with him.

The US has dicked around in South America for the last 100 years.

Everybody is quick to moan at those Russkie commie barstewards while the US has gone and undermined loads of countries in the last 50 years,with us prancing along to give moral support.

Because of us interfering in Iraq,Libya,Afghanistan,etc has really caused them to have great stability and now we have a bunch of angry religious people now attacking our own cities.

Even our own injured soldiers don't even get proper support from the government.

Ever wonder why the US still has 19 aircraft carriers??

That is more aircraft carriers than every other superpower combined.

What are we going to do in Ukraine?? Fight a ground war with Russia?? Cause,that definitely won't be the start of WW3. If not we fight a proxy war by supplying weaponary.

Then the next time we get bogged down in another war,the Russians and maybe Chinese will pay the favour back by arming the opposition and it will be another Vietnam.

TBH,I am bloody fedup of us playing world police,then it backfires in our faces and we are the ones who get screwed.

Maybe our politicians should have been more worried about what was happening in this country than prancing around the world.

They have misjudged the sentiment of so many people and allowed the far right to get engrained into our politics,since people feel ignored.

Now we have good old Trump in power and god knows who will be in power at the next general election.

Probably Nigel Farage at this rate.

So for all us prodding the bear,the bear now prodded back with consequences hardly any of us would would have thought were possible even 5 years ago.

[opel80uk]

Probably much the same as after virtually any election, when the voters are reminded, yet again, that the dictionary definition of "political promise" is "misdirection or deceit ranging from mildly deceptive euphemism to outrageous lie, that the politician not only knew was impractical or undeliverable, but had no the faintest intention of attempting to deliver, and for which the sole and unique purpose was to get elected, or re-elected".

Oh, okay, it ought to be a dictionary definition.

In reality, the smokescreen over Trump's 'trumps' has already started, and indeed had before election say, with senior Trump advisors clouding the issue by commenting on "build a wall" as bejng "taken too literally" with a heavy emphasis on it meaning "clamp down hard on border protection". Also, "get Mexico to pay for it" could mean tear up or "renegotiate" NAFTA, and slap heavy tariffs on imports, or even certain classes of imports, like cars ftom US companies that have relocated plants to Mexico thus exporting the jobs.

Among those that have suffered as a result of such plant relocations, imposing such tariffs might well be seen as an acceptable "wall".

If not, then some analysis of exit poll stats suggests that at least part of the voter demographic that secured the win for Trump was dusenchanted blue-collar types that hadn't bothered voting for a couple of decades precisely because the regard the Democratic party, dating back to Clinton (Bill) as having deserted them, their core base, for "liberal elites", not least because that's where election-fighting funds came from.

There is pissibly one race issue that played, though, but it's not in Trump's camp. I saw an interview with a senior, black Democratic party figure, about a week before the election, that suggest Hillary gad nade a big miscalculation. That was that because blacks identified with and turned out for Obama, and Obama endorsed Hillary, that she could rely on them to turn out again.

Three issues with that. First, nobody likes being taken for granted. Second, being taken for granted by a wealthy, white elitist woman that is almost the establushment personified, is especially grating. And third, a general feeling that even "one of us", a black President Obama, hadn't actually done mhch to improve their lives in 8 years, so being presumptuoysly handed on like the parcel in a giant, political game of the the oarcel, grated. Result? Some, having never bothered to vote pre-Obama, as doing so never made much difference, simpky went back to not bothering, at exactly the same time as disenchanred white, blue collar voters heard Trump singing their song and turned out.

In any event, despite all the furore about Trump, the "build the wall, stop Mexico exporting its ctiminals" stuff, the sex abuse tapes, etc, those exit polls showed Trump doing almost exactly the same among African-Americans, Latinos and women, as Romney did sgainst Obama last time.

The conclusion seems to be that Trump voters may well have discounted the OTT rhetoric as exactly that, election rhetoric, and simply decided that they'd hac enough of liberal elites promising the earth and in the end naking littke or no difference to what really matters, which is poverty, joblessness and homelessness, and voted for Trump, noses held, because no matter what he is, he isn't the usual lyjng political elite.

And yes, I hear the come-back .... billionaire Trump is as elite as they come. Sure, but not political elite.

Washington is one of the most corrupt cities on earth. Not necessarily in the "cash backhander" sense, but in the sense that, until Trump, just about every previous president, certainly in modern time, has come either from a senate seat, or a major state governership, and that to get into either role requires years of political butt-kissing, shady deals in smoky back rooms, and promises made or favours owed in return for campaign funding.

Much has been made in the media of Trump having no political experience, never held an elected role, etc. Well, EXACTLY.

He's not had years kissing those butts and incurring favour-debts. In Washington terms, he's not "one of us" which, to the politically disenchanted and disenfranchised, means precisely that he's not "one of them", billionaire or not.

And please, readers of this, DO NOT take this to mean I support Trump. I don't. I think he's an obnoxious, egotistical, self-entitled minimally-talented snob, born with a silver spoon in his mouth, with distinctly sociopathic characteristics. To my values, he's aboyt the only argument for voting for Hillary, if I'd had a vote which, thank all the Gods of every religion, I didn't.

I feel sorry for average American Joes and Joannas. This election meant either not voting, or regardless of who you picked, holding your nose while doing it.

I just MIGHT have gone for Trump, despite my opinion of him, just to see see whether an outsider, unencumbered by years of political whoremongering, MIGHT have been able to get things done that a real "politician", like Clinton, couldn't in the political cesspool that is Washington.

Erudite observations, as always, but I have to disagree with one bit:

There is pissibly one race issue that played, though, but it's not in Trump's camp. I saw an interview with a senior, black Democratic party figure, about a week before the election, that suggest Hillary gad nade a big miscalculation. That was that because blacks identified with and turned out for Obama, and Obama endorsed Hillary, that she could rely on them to turn out again.

The notion that the Trump camp didn't play the race card is fanciful in the extreme. He significantly played on peoples fears and prejudices regarding the 'others', no more so when he announced his policy intended policy of barring all Muslims from the country, or when he said 'The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc'. That is, in a nutshell, is playing a race card. It is absolutely no surprise at all to hear that, much like what happened in the UK after the Brexit vote, hate crime has increased in the US since Trump was elected. It is disingenuous to have dismissed the warnings of those on the other side that the dog whistle tactics employed are stirring up nationalist fervour that will be incredibly hard to contain, and to then ignore the entirely predictable results. Galant said previously that we should see what type or President, and man, Trump would be rather than judge him on what he had said previously. On that question, we only had to wait to see who he appointed and, with Steve Bannon coming in as his right hand man, we got our answer.

What Clinton's camp done was not so much play the race card per say; exit polls indicate that the African American vote for the Democrats held up, but rather what Clinton did do was take a large proportion of the electorate for granted in believing that Blue collar whites would vote Democrat, and even then to an extent she was sort of right. What she didn't do was anticipate, despite Bill Clinton and Joe Biden apparently trying to convey the same warnings, that Trump would be able convince a section of those Blue collar whites who don't usually vote to turn out for him in the numbers they did.

[outwar6010]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...erican-autopsy

This was pretty good.

[Saracen]

Erudite observations, as always, but I have to disagree with one bit:



The notion that the Trump camp didn't play the race card is fanciful in the extreme. He significantly played on peoples fears and prejudices regarding the 'others', no more so when he announced his policy intended policy of barring all Muslims from the country, or when he said 'The Mexican Government is forcing their most unwanted people into the United States. They are, in many cases, criminals, drug dealers, rapists, etc'. That is, in a nutshell, is playing a race card. It is absolutely no surprise at all to hear that, much like what happened in the UK after the Brexit vote, hate crime has increased in the US since Trump was elected. It is disingenuous to have dismissed the warnings of those on the other side that the dog whistle tactics employed are stirring up nationalist fervour that will be incredibly hard to contain, and to then ignore the entirely predictable results. Galant said previously that we should see what type or President, and man, Trump would be rather than judge him on what he had said previously. On that question, we only had to wait to see who he appointed and, with Steve Bannon coming in as his right hand man, we got our answer.

What Clinton's camp done was not so much play the race card per say; exit polls indicate that the African American vote for the Democrats held up, but rather what Clinton did do was take a large proportion of the electorate for granted in believing that Blue collar whites would vote Democrat, and even then to an extent she was sort of right. What she didn't do was anticipate, despite Bill Clinton and Joe Biden apparently trying to convey the same warnings, that Trump would be able convince a section of those Blue collar whites who don't usually vote to turn out for him in the numbers they did.

The problem with that is, a significant number of criminals and drug dealers are indeed abusing an overly porous border, and according to a BBC report shown only yesterday, Mexican drug cartels are now the largest source of hard drugs entering into the US. It is also no coincidence that Mexican (and indeed, some other south American countries) are VERY prolific in gang activity in, for example, LA.

In that same quote about "criminals, drug dealers and rapists", Trump also added words to the effect "there are good people too". So .... it is not unreasonable to point out that

a) drugs are a MAJOR problem, and
b) Mexico is a major source, and
c) the border with Mexico is a route for other Latin American drug gangs
d) reinforcing said border is a laudable objective
e) booting out (or incarcerating) as many illegals that are drug dealers, etc as you can is a damn good idea
f) doing everything you can, having booted them out, to keep them out, is also a good idea.

Personally, I would not have put it as crudely as Trump did, but it may be that that is as much a sign of him not being a "professional" politician with a slippery, glib answer for everything. He's certainly not the polished showman that Obama is. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

One thing that gets me really wound up watching politicians speak, or worse, be interviewed, is the slippery refusal to answer almost any mildly awkward question, to 'interpret' whatever the question was with "the real question is.... and then go on to define their own question so as go give the answer they want. That makes me want to scream at the TV and punch the dissembling politician right on the nose on both sides of their face.

Well, whatever Trump is, that sort of smooth, Obama-esque snake-oil salesmen he is not. Not yet, anyway.

Some of Trumps statements certainly have been crudely put, but there's no getting away from tne FACT that Mexico is a hotbed of drug supply. That is NOT saying that all Mexicans are drug dealers, but wanting to boot out and keep out those that are is not only not unreasonable, but is a very good objective. My reservation would be how practical it is, not how desirable it is.

Similarly, what Trump about Muslims was banning entry "until we sort out what the hell is going on". This was in the context of the Paris and other jihadist attacks, etc, and remember, coming from someone based in New York not very far from the 9/11 ground zero.

Again, it's crudely put from a non-politician, but the central thrust of it, as I read it, was in the light of Paris, Brussels etc .... he doesn't want another 9/11.

As I said, I can't stand Trump, and detested him long before he ran for office. But I can understand the appeal of someone that isn't a glib-tongued politician, especially to those that feel they've been ignored, deserted, insulted and condescended to by politicians of both main parties, here or in the US, for several decades.

[opel80uk]

The problem with that is, a significant number of criminals and drug dealers are indeed abusing an overly porous border, and according to a BBC report shown only yesterday, Mexican drug cartels are now the largest source of hard drugs entering into the US. It is also no coincidence that Mexican (and indeed, some other south American countries) are VERY prolific in gang activity in, for example, LA.

In that same quote about "criminals, drug dealers and rapists", Trump also added words to the effect "there are good people too". So .... it is not unreasonable to point out that

a) crugs are a MAJOR problem, and
b) Mexico is a major source, and
c) the border with Mexico is a route for other Latin American drug gangs
d) reinforcing said border is a laudable objective
e) booting out (or incarcerating) as many illegals that are drug dealers, etc as you can is a damn good idea
f) doing everything you can, having booted them out, to keep them out, is also a good idea.

Personally, I would not have put it as crudely as Trump did, but it may be that that is as much a sign of him not being a "professional" politician with a slippery, glib answer for everything. He's certainly not the polished showman that Obama is. But that's not necessarily a bad thing.

One thing that gets me really wound up watching politicians speak, or worse, be interviewed, is the slippery refusal to answer almost any mildly awkward question, to 'interpret' whatever the question was with "the real question is.... and then go on to define their own questjon so as go give the answer they want. That makes me want to scream at the TV and punch the dissembling politician right on the nose on both sides of their face.

Well, whatever Trump is, that sort of smooth, Obama-esque snake-oil salesmen he is not. Not yet, anyway.

Some of Trumps statements certainly have been crudely put, but there's no getting away from tne FACT that Mexico is a hotbed of drug supply. That is NOT saying that all Mexicans are drug dealers, but wanting to boot out and keep out those that are is not only not unreasonable, but is a very good objective. My reservation would be how practical it is, not how desirable it is.

Similarly, what Trump about Muslims was banning entry "until we sort out what the hell is going on". This was in the context of the Paris and other jihadist attacks, etc, and remember, coming from someone based in New York not very far from the 9/11 ground zero.

Again, it's crudely put from a non-politician, but the central thrust of it, as I read it, was in the light of Paris, Brussels etc .... he doesn't want another 9/11.

As I said, I can't stand Trump, and detested him long before he ran for office. But I can understand the appeal of someone that isn't a glib-tongued politician, especially to those that feel they've been ignored, deserted, insulted and condescended to by politicians of both main parties, here or in the US, for several decades.

Well I don't disagree one iota in understanding the appeal he has, but I think you and I perhaps have a difference of opinion on to what exactly he is appealing to in people.

Firstly, whilst it is obvious that not every mexican is a criminal (and in fact a recent article in the Washington Post cited a study that showed first generation immigrants are far less likely to commit crimes compared to 2nd generation immigrants and the native population), that is certainly what was being implied by Trump and furthermore, he stated that it is the Mexican Government sending these criminals to the US, as if it is some official foreign policy.
He has also said, and I quote; 'Likewise, tremendous infectious disease is pouring across the border.' - Yet there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever of that being the case. I agree wholeheartedly that keeping out undesirables in the form of criminals is absolutely right, regardless of where one lives, but the demonisation of a whole group of people for the actions of what are, in relative terms, a small percentage of that overall group is shameful, and not something that can, nor should, be attributed to him simply being unpolished. His appointment of Bannon should, if there was any there in the first place, leave no one in any doubt that this is policy, rather that mis-speaking.

It's the same with the, now seemingly dropped, policy of banning Muslims. Leaving aside for one second how from simply a logistics point of view it is completely unfeasible to implement and by all accounts, unconstitutional, in calling for a blanket ban on 1.6billion of the worlds population simply because of the religion they follow (and who by the way are themselves the biggest victims of Islamic terrorism), even until 'you figure out what the hell is going on' (Although you'd think a small minority of a particular group using violence to further political goals was invented on 9/11 the way some people go on about it), is simply a racist policy. And that is not to mention the 4M or so Muslims living in the US already, and what policies like that do for them and their communities. And most importantly, how is any of this different from the kind of rhetoric we have heard prior to violence used on particular minorities throughout history?

[Corky34]

Trump is nothing more than a demagogue and seeing as it's only been three generations since we said goodbye to one of those I'd question if we're teaching our children the right lessons from history.

[horlock]

Trump is nothing more than a demagogue and seeing as it's only been three generations since we said goodbye to one of those I'd question if we're teaching our children the right lessons from history.

Wow - came here to find out about computers and techy stuff and find myself learning vocabulary.

[Saracen]

Well I don't disagree one iota in understanding the appeal he has, but I think you and I perhaps have a difference of opinion on to what exactly he is appealing to in people.

Maybe, maybe not.

But I originally responded directly to one point ....

.... but what comes after when the people who voted for him realise they've been betrayed.

That seems to have grown into an expectation of justifying Trump's comments, or beliefs, or policies.

As for any differences of opinion, I'm afraid I'm militantly disinterested in discussing it, because I'm already bored sick of Trump. He's in, he'll do what he will and it'll have whatever consequences it will. I'm not a Trump fan, or supporter, as I think I've already made very clear, and other than gob-smacking astonishment that in a population the size of that of the US they couldn't manage to get at least ONE mass appeal candidate that people could vote for better that the Trump/Clinton option they actually offered, I haven't really got much else I can be bothered to say about the US election. I find the whole subject a confusing mix of hilarious astonishment and soul-destroying depression.

[Corky34]

He's in, he'll do what he will and it'll have whatever consequences it will.

Agree with the he'll do what he does, however there's a slim chance the electoral collage won't vote him in to be president, iirc it's happened before and with Trump already rolling back on so much of what he promised it could be argued that people wouldn't have voted for him in such numbers had he been honest with them.

[TooNice]

That will depend on whether people voted for Trump because of his promises or because of the myriads of other possible reasons they voted for him. I wouldn't bet on him being ousted before the next election at the earliest..

[Corky34]

I must be being a bit dim then as i can't think of a reason why someone would vote for a candidate if it wasn't for what they promised.

[SeriousSam]

I must be being a bit dim then as i can't think of a reason why someone would vote for a candidate if it wasn't for what they promised.

People have different priorities. Sometimes this means voting for someone so that their opponent(s) can't do what they promised. It's one of the consequences of "adversarial" politics.

[Corky34]

True but in the context of what we're talking about that would probably be a very small percentage when compared to how many have been deceived by Mr Trump.

At a guess what percentage of people voted for Trump just because he wasn't Clinton?

And what percentage voted for him for the wall that's going to be a fence, the draining of the swamp that's looking more like a swamp everyday, the repeal and replacement of Obamacare that now looks like it's going to be a re-branding exercise, mass deportations that's now only going to be criminals, and those are in the last week alone, by the time he takes office there'll probably be nothing left.

[Saracen]

True but in the context of what we're talking about that would probably be a very small percentage when compared to how many have been deceived by Mr Trump.
...

On what evidential basis are we supposed to decide how many Trump voters were "deceived" by him, especially as opposed to how many are deceived by any other candidates election promises?

....

At a guess what percentage of people voted for Trump just because he wasn't Clinton?

Even if they did, it's a valid voter electoral strategy in any non-PR direct election. There have been a number of occasions here (UK) where my vote has been determined not by who I want, as "none of the above" was not a ballot option, but rather, how to vote to best prevent whoever I least want getting in.


Conventional game theory shows that sometimes, "least worst" is the optimum option from a bad set of options.

[TooNice]

I must be being a bit dim then as i can't think of a reason why someone would vote for a candidate if it wasn't for what they promised.

A few more possibilities than the ones already mentioned: some may have a history of backing a particular party (I don't think we can discount that - even if Trump might not have been the Republican's favourite, I suspect that quite a lot of people wouldn't go as far as supporting a Democrat to make that point). Others may want to convey a certain <unprintable> you!" to the establishment and see Trump as that. Even if they might be disappointed if the promises aren't kept (though they may not really care that much for them in the first place), the deal breaker might not be not doing what they promised, but doing the opposite of what they promised.. which gives Trump more room to manoeuvre. Celebrity status might count for something too. Personally, I wonder if had Arnold Schwarzenegger been US born, and stood for the Democrats, whether he'd do quite well.

You could say it is all for the wrong reasons, but I conclude that people don't always use their vote for all the right reasons.

Actually, I wonder how well a system where citizens votes are assigned to a party/nominee using an open source AI, based on a whole list of policies and weighing would work. Like a more advanced version of that "which party should I vote for" site I've seen for our General Election, except that the results are automatically submitted as a vote. Could be quite scary to let a machine "decide" the future of the country, or find out that deeply, half the country support the BNP, but the results may represent better more accurately what the voters think they want